G.M. Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 :thumbsup: Cheer up folks. There is always next season. After all, you have a lot to look forward to! This June the Sabres will draft about 13th overall, drafting another slightly above average regular season forward. You know the type, the type that will maintain the team around .500 for years to come. Some of the players may even show flashes of brilliance followed by flashes of deceit. The team will have winning streaks and losing streaks. The core group of players will be another year older. The organization will have their collective up against the cap with no way of bringing in superstar talent. Many fans will continue to buy tickets. You guys will continue to come to the board, and talk about how the new coach is doing, line combinations, power play etc. When everything is said and done you will have a .500 hockey team. Hey, we may even make the playoffs! Then on WGR radio guys like "Dope" and the "Bullfrog" will say, ?wow if we just add a few more pieces and this team will be there!? Unfortunately those pieces are Federov, Shanahan and Larry Robinson in their prime; along with a cast of hard working players that the Sabres don't have. ?Mike Dope? will say, ??we have to make the playoffs because they playoffs are fun???. ?At least if they make the playoffs they will have a chance?, "Let's just get there!." :oops: No, sorry, you are only deluding yourself. :wallbash: I can?t remember a single time an underdog team won the Stanley Cup can you? :thumbdown: If there were any it would be an anomaly and not statistically significant. I can however, remember underdog teams reaching the finals only to be crushed--never ever any of them winning! I would say the chances are 100 percent you get crushed and 0 percent for a championship. Zetterberg, and Datsyuk! Zetterberg, and Datsyuk!! Zetterberg, and Datsyuk!!!! Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees :sick: I know. If Detroit were so convinced why did they pass them over 13 times collectively before they decided they were superstars? The State of New York depends on people that believe lies like this. People who play the lottery and believe they have a chance of winning--people that believe that a Stanley Cup Championship can be won with subpar talent. There are people that spend 20 dollars a week on lottery tickets where, if you put that same money in an IRA or mutual funds, they would retire with millions. Is it possible that your stocks do poorly? Yes, but the longer you stay in eventually you will make money. In hockey, if you continue to draft in the top 10 (preferably 5) eventually you will have the next Lemeuix or Lafontaine. Elite players are simply much more likely to be drafted in the early first round. What is the most statistically successful strategy that the Sabres could adopt? The Sabres must rebuild completely. They must sandbag. :D
Kristian Posted March 21, 2009 Report Posted March 21, 2009 I can?t remember a single time an underdog team won the Stanley Cup can you? Devils beating Wings in 1995.
LexLuthor871 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 Devils beating Wings in 1995. That's debateable. Red Wings had a long cup drought and Devils would have won the cup the year before had they knocked off the Rangers.
Knightrider Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 :thumbsup: Cheer up folks. . . . yet more drivel . . . The Sabres must rebuild completely. They must sandbag. :D How many times are you going to start the same topic?
SwampD Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 I really hope we lose two G.M.s after this game.
LabattBlue Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 How many times are you going to start the same topic? thank you. :thumbsup:
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 How many times are you going to start the same topic? When the Sabres finally sandbad or When every Sabre fan agrees
Stoner Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 I really hope we lose two G.M.s after this game. SwampD's on a roll today! Somebody get a fire hose. Put this guy oat.
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 Devils beating Wings in 1995. Wow so 1/38! maybe. Everyone should just agree, deep down you know I'm right.
carpandean Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 When the Sabres finally sandbad orWhen every Sabre fan agrees No team (i.e., the players and coach) will intentionally tank in the NHL. The closest thing that happens is that the GM trades away all the UFAs and other old players at the deadline for picks, leaving the young callups to finish out the season. However, every one of those guys would still be playing for a win every night. Despite a few long term contracts, most of the players have contracts that end in the next year or two, so doing anything like that would look bad not only on their stats and for them as players, in general.
Stoner Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 This is reminding me of Stephen King's The Stand. I think the board should have a town hall meeting and agree to just give GM what we wants. Edit: I meant Storm of the Century.
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 You bought some Blue Magic didn't you I had to Google the term. :thumbdown: Your lack of an intelligent response just affirms to me truth sometimes hurt. Nobody has refuted anything I have said. They have corrected my spelling, grammar and heckled my avatar but have not refuted my arguments. So put that in your pipe and toke it! :worthy: GO! :worthy: G.M. :worthy: GO! :worthy: ( :nana:)
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 I really hope we lose two G.M.s after this game. Yes, right don't talk about the issues; deflect attention away from them, brilliant. You're my hero! Great one liner that again has nothing to do with the topic. :rolleyes:
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 This is reminding me of Stephen King's The Stand. I think the board should have a town hall meeting and agree to just give GM what we wants. Edit: I meant Storm of the Century. I want what everyone else here wants, a chance to go downtown and flip over cars and ransack storefronts (not), because the Sabres won the Cup! :thumbsup:
carpandean Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 Nobody has refuted anything I have said. Uhm ... yeah ... kinda, I did. Sandbagging occurs at the deadline. The losing afterwords is due to the lack of experienced talent left on the team after the GM holds a fire sale. Deadline has come and gone, so there will be no sandbagging. Teams don't lose on purpose.
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 No team (i.e., the players and coach) will intentionally tank in the NHL. The closest thing that happens is that the GM trades away all the UFAs and other old players at the deadline for picks, leaving the young callups to finish out the season. However, every one of those guys would still be playing for a win every night. Despite a few long term contracts, most of the players have contracts that end in the next year or two, so doing anything like that would look bad not only on their stats and for them as players, in general. Don?t be incognizant of the fact that the whole reason we have a draft lottery now is to curtail teams from doing precisely what I am proposing they do. By all means the players that are on the roster must play for wins. The process of a complete rebuild does not have to mean that you have a team that plays uninspired or boring hockey. On the contrary, I believe a team could be built that would still be entertaining enough until the transition is reached. Think about it, could you actually imagine if the Sabres were to draft the next Crosby or Mario Lemieux. No matter how the team would play in those early years they would still draw huge crowds just for the star appeal? It does not have to be a hard transition. There is never a guarantee, it (sandbagging) just happens to afford us the most logical, statistically, and financially viable plan to actually produce a cup winner.
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 Uhm ... yeah ... kinda, I did. Sandbagging occurs at the deadline. The losing afterwords is due to the lack of experienced talent left on the team after the GM holds a fire sale. Deadline has come and gone, so there will be no sandbagging. Teams don't lose on purpose. Let me clarify then, by sandbagging I am referring to a number of different categories having in common a team being bad for a few years to get top picks. The simplest way to do this is trade away your talent for picks and prospects (this need not occur at the deadline). During the transition period you will draft lower by the very nature of rebuilding. I do not advocate losing on purpose that would be unethical. Pittsburgh pretty much saved its franchise like that, don?t underestimate that teams would never do it. Remember when Lemeuix went south threatening to move the team and the league stepped in? Isn?t that an interesting coincidence?
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 SwampD's on a roll today! Somebody get a fire hose. Put this guy oat. Lest he be eaten by a farm animal!
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 I really hope we lose two G.M.s after this game. :cry:
G.M. Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Posted March 22, 2009 Devils beating Wings in 1995. "One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics. One that is at a disadvantage." Does not say anything about items that are evenly matched!
FogBat Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 How many times are you going to start the same topic? Why do I have this sick feeling that "G.M." is actually a "reincarnation" of this guy? Am I alone in this uneasiness? I mean, come on. Merv Griffin wasn't this, um, creative in his responses.
Supersabre Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 Why do I have this sick feeling that "G.M." is actually a "reincarnation" of this guy? Am I alone in this uneasiness? I mean, come on. Merv Griffin wasn't this, um, creative in his responses. :unsure:
Kristian Posted March 22, 2009 Report Posted March 22, 2009 That's debateable. Red Wings had a long cup drought and Devils would have won the cup the year before had they knocked off the Rangers. Sorry, but there's no way that's even remotely debateable. Wings won the Presidents Trophy, Devils were the 5th seed in the east. I know this is a very even league where any team can beat another team on a given night, but there's still such a thing as favorites and underdogs, and the Devils were huge underdogs going into the finals against a Wings team that had owned a shortened regular season. Looking at the 1996 numbers, the 1995 Devils were as big, if no bigger, underdogs than Florida was against Colorado a year later (2nd seed west, Vs. 4th seed east). I don't think anyone were surprised that Colorado won that year. But those are just numbers.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.