nfreeman Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 Playoffs any day. You play to win. You can't win unless you're not in. It's hockey, not basketball. Get hot at the right time and you can go deep or even win it all. You can't foster a winning culture by actively promoting a losing one. Let me ask this....if the playoffs start tomorrow and the Sabres are in....are you excited or would you prefer a high draft pick? The Sabres have enough high draft choices on the roster. Life is too short. I want playoffs. Really? Anytime? So you would sit through the next 5 years with a losing team and no playoffs just to get top 5 picks? Ridiculous. You have a choice between this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w8KvO-Uw2s and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0xxSsEqjIk Tough choice... Playoffs Because we have a pretty pretty young team. A playoff series would mean the world to these guys in case of development. insane question. I take playoffs, every time, without regard to anything else. This game is played to win and there is evidence provided by teams that win and teams that lose that you can turn it around. There is also evidence provided by teams that win and teams that lose that losing will continue. I will never understand this losing mentality. It's okay to suck to get better in the future. This is indicative of our culture of mediocrity and acceptance of lower effort. It's rationalizing the purpose. How about instead of sucking to get better the mentality is you try harder to get better. Halle-freakin'-lujah.
TrueBlueGED Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 insane question. I take playoffs, every time, without regard to anything else. This game is played to win and there is evidence provided by teams that win and teams that lose that you can turn it around. There is also evidence provided by teams that win and teams that lose that losing will continue. I will never understand this losing mentality. It's okay to suck to get better in the future. This is indicative of our culture of mediocrity and acceptance of lower effort. It's rationalizing the purpose. How about instead of sucking to get better the mentality is you try harder to get better. That works if you have the talent level such that more effort will improve results. But if you don't have enough talent, then effort isn't going to mean a whole heck of a lot. Somebody who is inherently bad at math isn't going to become a world-famous statistician (...do those even exist? :lol: ) through hard work. At best they'll start getting Cs instead of Fs in classes. Being a Buffalo sports fan, I've seen enough Cs to last me awhile--I'd rather be flat-out awful than mediocre, because then the decision to use my time on something else is easier. The treadmill of mediocrity can go F itself.
Doohicksie Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 I do not know how to start a poll but here is another scenario. We play decent all year and manage to get into the playoffs. Proceed to get knocked out in first round. If we had a hockey crystal ball would you rather go into the season knowing you were getting knocked out in the first round or that you would end up with top 5 pick? It's a moot point. They will finish in 9th place. Again.
nfreeman Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 That works if you have the talent level such that more effort will improve results. But if you don't have enough talent, then effort isn't going to mean a whole heck of a lot. Somebody who is inherently bad at math isn't going to become a world-famous statistician (...do those even exist? :lol: ) through hard work. At best they'll start getting Cs instead of Fs in classes. Being a Buffalo sports fan, I've seen enough Cs to last me awhile--I'd rather be flat-out awful than mediocre, because then the decision to use my time on something else is easier. The treadmill of mediocrity can go F itself. This is like picking a scab, but it must be pointed out that you're assuming that a top 5 pick will result in a departure from the treadmill of mediocrity -- or in the case of a team bad enough to get a top 5 pick, the treadmill of worse-than-mediocrity. This is a faulty assumption IMHO, and in any case one that hasn't been supported with any data.
dudacek Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 The only time you ever actively root for bottoming out is when you are clearly way out of the playoff mix and there are franchise players available at the top of the draft. The last 20 games of last year was one of the few times I have ever done this. If I was so jaded that I was rooting for a top five pick before the season even starts, I might as well stop being a fan.
TrueBlueGED Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 This is like picking a scab, but it must be pointed out that you're assuming that a top 5 pick will result in a departure from the treadmill of mediocrity -- or in the case of a team bad enough to get a top 5 pick, the treadmill of worse-than-mediocrity. This is a faulty assumption IMHO, and in any case one that hasn't been supported with any data. Just as there's no evidence that getting into the playoffs will carry on to the next season into more winning. Regardless, that wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I was simply saying that if you're a team without enough raw talent, then getting a top-5 pick will give you the best odds of improving your talent level, and that is supported by the data. Whether that helps you get off the treadmill will depend upon subsequent moves. And there is some evidence that tanking is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for success--I've posted before how the majority of teams to win the Cup since the lockout (save for Boston and Detroit) has had players drafted in the top-5 or acquired key pieces through trades involving top-5 picks. The only time you ever actively root for bottoming out is when you are clearly way out of the playoff mix and there are franchise players available at the top of the draft. The last 20 games of last year was one of the few times I have ever done this. If I was so jaded that I was rooting for a top five pick before the season even starts, I might as well stop being a fan. In fairness, the premise of this thread was that you know for a fact you will not get out of the first round. I think knowing that changes the calculus, even if it doesn't change what you would ultimately prefer to do.
nfreeman Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 Just as there's no evidence that getting into the playoffs will carry on to the next season into more winning. Regardless, that wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I was simply saying that if you're a team without enough raw talent, then getting a top-5 pick will give you the best odds of improving your talent level, and that is supported by the data. Whether that helps you get off the treadmill will depend upon subsequent moves. And there is some evidence that tanking is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for success--I've posted before how the majority of teams to win the Cup since the lockout (save for Boston and Detroit) has had players drafted in the top-5 or acquired key pieces through trades involving top-5 picks. In fairness, the premise of this thread was that you know for a fact you will not get out of the first round. I think knowing that changes the calculus, even if it doesn't change what you would ultimately prefer to do. As to the bolded point: the high pick gives you the best odds of improving your level of raw talent in the draft. It doesn't do anything for developing talent in the system or attracting talent from outside the organization -- both of which are also critical to an organization's success, which is what really matters. I agree with your 2nd paragraph -- although now we're really getting abstract.
TrueBlueGED Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 As to the bolded point: the high pick gives you the best odds of improving your level of raw talent in the draft. It doesn't do anything for developing talent in the system or attracting talent from outside the organization -- both of which are also critical to an organization's success, which is what really matters. I agree with your 2nd paragraph -- although now we're really getting abstract. I basically agree. My only rebuttal would be I think attracting talent through UFA is becoming less important as the trend seems to be teams locking up their best players before they ever get to start a bidding war.
Weave Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 I appreciate the enthusiasm, but realistically At least 2 of the 5 first picks from this year will never make an impact on the NHL. Unless we really believe there's some drafting genuis that's going to overturn years and years of history. I believe what I posted was correct even if I assume the bolded (and I do assume the bolded).
sicknfla Posted September 19, 2013 Author Report Posted September 19, 2013 The premise of this thread was this: if you had the choice to spend 82 games plus the first round of good quality hockey vs spending 82 games waiting to be a top 5 pick which would you take? The point was top 5 picks, also known as rebuilding, is all fine and dandy once the season has been lost. Prior to the season we want 7 months of good hockey. Management owes the fans that. It is inexcusable with what they charge for tickets, merchandise, etc.that they can expect this fanbase to willingly accept "suffering". Maybe with a new GM but sure as hell not with the guy that put us in this mess. I know it's redundant but damn it's annoying that we are starting another season with this guy in charge.
MattPie Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 I believe what I posted was correct even if I assume the bolded (and I do assume the bolded). True. I picked your post, but it's really something that's been bouncing around in my head for awhile. Maybe your post isn't the perfect one to reply with it though. :)
Sabre Dance Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 We (as fans) have been living on "potential" for the last...how many seasons is it now? I want something tangible from this team, sooner rather than later. Making it to the playoffs needs to be the goal EVERY year, otherwise what the heck are we in the league for? Yes, this team is very young. That doesn't mean they can't "pull a rabbit out of their hat" and wind up with a playoff spot. A top 5 pick in ANY draft is no guarantee that they will ever play in the NHL, let alone be great. There are plenty of names on the Stanley Cup of players taken in lower rounds. All our youngers need to do is learn how to win and then keep doing it. Short answer: Playoffs, please. :clapping:
LGR4GM Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 So basically this thread was created to bitch about darcy regier? Great, just what we needed another thread that beats a dead horse. :death:
sicknfla Posted September 19, 2013 Author Report Posted September 19, 2013 No it wasn't. Just kind of evolved that way...lol. I honestly was just trying to see the difference in people's mindset now that the season is upon us versus the end of the season. Then I kind of went into a Darcy bitchfest.
deluca67 Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 insane question. I take playoffs, every time, without regard to anything else. This game is played to win and there is evidence provided by teams that win and teams that lose that you can turn it around. There is also evidence provided by teams that win and teams that lose that losing will continue. I will never understand this losing mentality. It's okay to suck to get better in the future. This is indicative of our culture of mediocrity and acceptance of lower effort. It's rationalizing the purpose. How about instead of sucking to get better the mentality is you try harder to get better. I'll take one Stanley Cup over any number of meaningless playoff appearances. Just wanting to "make the playoffs" is the true indication of a loser mentality and is nothing more than a continuation of the mediocrity this franchise is stuck in.
sicknfla Posted September 19, 2013 Author Report Posted September 19, 2013 Ok let's start another thread with that one.
LTS Posted September 19, 2013 Report Posted September 19, 2013 That works if you have the talent level such that more effort will improve results. But if you don't have enough talent, then effort isn't going to mean a whole heck of a lot. Somebody who is inherently bad at math isn't going to become a world-famous statistician (...do those even exist? :lol: ) through hard work. At best they'll start getting Cs instead of Fs in classes. Being a Buffalo sports fan, I've seen enough Cs to last me awhile--I'd rather be flat-out awful than mediocre, because then the decision to use my time on something else is easier. The treadmill of mediocrity can go F itself. I agree with the talent statement you start with. However, a person who is inherently bad at math isn't the same as an organization. The person cannot become something they are not but there's no way you can tell me this organization cannot be something different. The Sabres may not have won a Cup but they have made the finals. They've challenged. They've won the President's Trophy. The organization in and of itself has the capacity to be a lot of things. I get that you could infer that given existing ownership and management nothing would change. That's certainly possible. I understand how you'd like the sports teams to make your decisions on how to spend your time easier but you know that it's all up to you in the end. :)
LGR4GM Posted September 20, 2013 Report Posted September 20, 2013 Everyone... this team has changed. It is different this year than it was last year. The mentality we hate I don't see. How that translates in the season is unknown but this isn't the 2011 Sabres.
Weave Posted September 20, 2013 Report Posted September 20, 2013 Everyone... this team has changed. It is different this year than it was last year. The mentality we hate I don't see. How that translates in the season is unknown but this isn't the 2011 Sabres. You. Don't. See? On radio broadcasts?
nfreeman Posted September 20, 2013 Report Posted September 20, 2013 You. Don't. See? On radio broadcasts? Beat me to it. Down, boy! You're slobbering all over the couch!
Bullwinkle III Posted September 20, 2013 Report Posted September 20, 2013 Let me ask this....if the playoffs start tomorrow and the Sabres are in....are you excited or would you prefer a high draft pick? The Sabres have enough high draft choices on the roster. Life is too short. I want playoffs. Really? Anytime? So you would sit through the next 5 years with a losing team and no playoffs just to get top 5 picks? Ridiculous. It's not ridiculous, it's good common sense. You get a top 5 pick for 5 years running and you've got a winning team...in fact if you hit a first or second once or twice, you can be a serious contender. Statistics have shown that a draftee in the top 5 has a good chance to become a good to excellent NHL player. I'd rather have that than 5 guaranteed years of first round playoff losses, which was the premise of this debate. Like True Blue said, mediocrity is hell.
sicknfla Posted September 20, 2013 Author Report Posted September 20, 2013 It's not ridiculous, it's good common sense. You get a top 5 pick for 5 years running and you've got a winning team...in fact if you hit a first or second once or twice, you can be a serious contender. Statistics have shown that a draftee in the top 5 has a good chance to become a good to excellent NHL player. I'd rather have that than 5 guaranteed years of first round playoff losses, which was the premise of this debate. Like True Blue said, mediocrity is hell. You want to get an Edmonton fans opinion on your theory??
K-9 Posted September 20, 2013 Report Posted September 20, 2013 With all due respect to the OP, this is a totally foreign concept to me. Playoffs and a chance to get to the dance EVERY TIME. No questions asked. What else can you expect out of a team? GO SABRES!!!
TrueBlueGED Posted September 20, 2013 Report Posted September 20, 2013 With all due respect to the OP, this is a totally foreign concept to me. Playoffs and a chance to get to the dance EVERY TIME. No questions asked. What else can you expect out of a team? GO SABRES!!! I think you and everyone else saying "make the playoffs for a chance" are totally missing the point, seeing as the OP explicitly states you know in advance you will lose in the first round. So it's not a question of giving a team a chance to make a run, but rather if the experience of a playoff round (and any league-wide perception bonuses of making the dance) out-weighs the significantly greater probability of adding impact talent in the draft through a top-5 pick. Personally I think it's a pretty interesting question, but it gets totally de-valued by ignoring an important part of it.
K-9 Posted September 20, 2013 Report Posted September 20, 2013 I think you and everyone else saying "make the playoffs for a chance" are totally missing the point, seeing as the OP explicitly states you know in advance you will lose in the first round. So it's not a question of giving a team a chance to make a run, but rather if the experience of a playoff round (and any league-wide perception bonuses of making the dance) out-weighs the significantly greater probability of adding impact talent in the draft through a top-5 pick. Personally I think it's a pretty interesting question, but it gets totally de-valued by ignoring an important part of it. I managed to miss that. Of course that changes the equation. As would knowing the outcomes of many things in advance. Is the first round experience for the players a 7 game series or are they swept? GO SABRES!!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.