Sep. 1, 2020
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>holtzer</b></div><div>I'm not saying every organization does it correctly. We clearly have seen teams fail like Buffalo as you mentioned, but the reasoning behind those failures isn't because rebuilding doesn't work. It is because the front office and scouting department's failed, whether it's not properly developing their prospects, not bringing in the right complementary pieces, making bad trades, or not drafting the right talent.
It's ignorant to say "rebuilding isn't a winning formula" because history clearly shows that statement is simply untrue. It's obviously not a fool proof plan, but it works. Also, I'm not saying it's the only way to form a strong team, such as you've seen with the Bruins. I mean, 5 of the 9 players you listed were drafted outside of the 1st round. That's credited to good scouting, smart development, and honestly a little bit of luck. The key difference is that you were't low in the standings when those players were drafted. That right there is 2 pieces of how to do a successful rebuild. You might not have been tanking, but in reality how the Bruins built their core isn't that far off from what rebuilding is.
With rebuilding, it's not about the formula. It's about those who are trying to solve it. Some win, some fail. Just because some people in the world can't solve a math problem, doesn't mean the formula's wrong. Between the teams I list above, at one point or another, were the bottom feeders of the NHL. They all sucked, drafted, developed, and now they are all champions who's cores were built through the draft.</div></div>
Rebuilding is being content with losing.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>holtzer</b></div><div>Yes choose the one failed experiment to try and prove a point while completely ignoring the ones that were successful. The point of a rebuild is scout, draft, and develop your core to move forward with. Then you fill in the holes with free agent signings, or trades using the expendable assets you've acquired over the course of your rebuild. The last 5 different Cup winner's cores were largely built through the draft, so idk how tf you can confidently say it's not a winning formula.
Colorado: MacKinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog, Makar, Newhook, Byram
Tampa: Stamkos, Kucherov, Point, Killorn, Hedman, Palat, Vasilevsky, Colton, Foote, CIrelli
St Louis: Tarasenko, Perron (returned), Pietrangelo, Schwartz, Dunn, Thomas, Parayko, Steen, Barbashev, Binnington.
Washington: Ovechkin, Kuznetsov, Backstrom, Carlson, Wilson, Orlov, Vrana, Burakovsky, Holtby, Grubauer
Pittsburgh: Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Guentzel, Fleury, Murray, J Staal and Orpik (2009).
But hey, I guess you would know about Boston more than I do. Have fun continuing to do this little purgatory thing you got going where you don't fail but yet are never seen as a true contender. Your one single championship in the last 30 years really appreciates it. Can't wait to see what you think when your core of Marchand, Bergeron, Krejci, and Pastrnak are all gone in the next couple of years and you try to build a team through your non-existant prospect pool.</div></div>
I've never said you don't have to draft well. All you did was list players that were drafted by their team. Plus, three of the five teams you listed also have only one cup "in the last 30 years." The Bruins have been to three cups in the past 11 years. If you want to diss them for not winning a second one, that's fine but they've been there and have been a model for other teams in the league to build. Look at the Bruins drafted talent: Bergeron, Marchand, Pastrnak, McAvoy, Swayman, Carlo, Grzelcyk, Krejci, DeBrusk. None of those picks were made with a rebuilding team.