Hockey's Future Prospect of the Year 2011: David Rundblad

hemlock wrote:
Finally, I'll ask you this: Would you rather be the Florida Panthers who continue to toil in mediocrity decade after decade, or be the Lightning, who are successful for a stretch, then suck as hard as is humanely possible for a few years, then get back to being a very competitive team? Now ask yourself, what model are the Senators following based on this past season?

Hoags wrote:

hemlock wrote:
Finally, I'll ask you this: Would you rather be the Florida Panthers who continue to toil in mediocrity decade after decade, or be the Lightning, who are successful for a stretch, then suck as hard as is humanely possible for a few years, then get back to being a very competitive team? Now ask yourself, what model are the Senators following based on this past season?

Tampa Bay, we're not toiling in mediocrity for anywhere near as long as long as the Panthers.

Florida blows at developing prospects and they're too cheap to even sign them for what they're worth (Gudbransen). We are far smarter than they are and Spezza is better than anyone they'll have for a long time.

The last 20 games don't matter much to me. I do not want losing to EVER become acceptable in Ottawa and whoever we draft at 6th overall will be better than any of our other prospects.

We didn't miss out on Crosby or anything.

I think you're freaking out over our draft position too much.

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:The fact is, Ottawa fans are trying to sugar coat what happened in the last 20 or so games of the season. Ottawa blew it. Plain and simple. They could have stayed the course (or actively tanked like some other teams) and finished lower in the standings. Those wins were meaningless. The public had already accepted the situation and more losses wouldn't have really hurt the team support wise. Now, instead of having our pick of a select few guys, we are left to take whomever lands in our laps. It's a kick in a groin after enduring such a Dung season, then having management all but come out and claim rebuild.

I have such a problem with this. If by "blew it" you mean "went out and got a goalie for nothing that will improve the team considerably while continuing to purge older vets that weren't contributing and replacing them with picks and calling up some surprisingly talented players who demonstrated that the team had no business at the bottom of the standings" then I agree. If, on the other hand, by "blew it" you mean "tried to win as many games as possible" then I don't understand your position. That's their job. Should they have let Anderson go to another team and been left without a viable goalie next year? There's almost no chance that we'd land a Vokoun or a Bryz, so Anderson was definitely the next best option.

How should the Sens have finished out the season? Sit Spezza and Karlsson? How should they have guaranteed a better draft position? Throw games? I honestly don't understand your position. Also, the idea that the fans are "sugar-coating" the reality blows my mind. We (at least I) want the team to win. I'm not harbouring latent thoughts about the team blowing their chance at a better pick here. I enjoyed watching the games at the end of the season. It gave me hope for this coming season.

hemlock wrote:Finally, I'll ask you this: Would you rather be the Florida Panthers who continue to toil in mediocrity decade after decade, or be the Lightning, who are successful for a stretch, then suck as hard as is humanely possible for a few years, then get back to being a very competitive team? Now ask yourself, what model are the Senators following based on this past season?

Florida is a bad team for a bunch of reason, not just their draft positioning. You're simplifying the situation to make your argument. Also, I'd rather be more like Detroit. I'd rather Ottawa be a team that drafts well and is well managed and coached. The TBL model isn't the only example of success. Look at Philly. They had one AWFUL year, but that draft selection is only now starting to pay off. They didn't rebuild through the draft, they rebuilt through key (risky, but key) moves.

Hoags wrote:

hemlock wrote:
Finally, I'll ask you this: Would you rather be the Florida Panthers who continue to toil in mediocrity decade after decade, or be the Lightning, who are successful for a stretch, then suck as hard as is humanely possible for a few years, then get back to being a very competitive team? Now ask yourself, what model are the Senators following based on this past season?

Tampa Bay, we're not toiling in mediocrity for anywhere near as long as long as the Panthers.

Florida blows at developing prospects and they're too cheap to even sign them for what they're worth (Gudbransen). We are far smarter than they are and Spezza is better than anyone they'll have for a long time.

The last 20 games don't matter much to me. I do not want losing to EVER become acceptable in Ottawa and whoever we draft at 6th overall will be better than any of our other prospects.

We didn't miss out on Crosby or anything.

I think you're freaking out over our draft position too much.

hemlock wrote:
Nice, just don't answer the question then.

Yeah, Ottawa blew it. I've made my position quite clear since before the season ended about this. They could have finished lower and they didn't. It's an opportunity squandered. An opportunity to draft a potential franchise player. Sure the possibility exists that we get one from the 6th spot, but the odds that we'd have gotten one from 3rd or 4th spot are higher, and that's what was squandered.

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:
Nice, just don't answer the question then.

Yeah, Ottawa blew it. I've made my position quite clear since before the season ended about this. They could have finished lower and they didn't. It's an opportunity squandered. An opportunity to draft a potential franchise player. Sure the possibility exists that we get one from the 6th spot, but the odds that we'd have gotten one from 3rd or 4th spot are higher, and that's what was squandered.

I didn't answer your question because I assumed that it's rhetorical nature made answering it pointless. Yes, I would prefer it if the team had 2 chances at a cup in 7 years than if the team was always mediocre and missed the playoffs every year.

I notice that you ignored my questions. How could the Sens have capitalized on their opportunity to lose? Should they have benched Spezza and Karlsson? Should they have told Sherman to stick it and kept Elliott? I don't understand what it is that you wanted them to do to ensure the losses that you deem necessary to winning.

marakh wrote:

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:
Nice, just don't answer the question then.

Yeah, Ottawa blew it. I've made my position quite clear since before the season ended about this. They could have finished lower and they didn't. It's an opportunity squandered. An opportunity to draft a potential franchise player. Sure the possibility exists that we get one from the 6th spot, but the odds that we'd have gotten one from 3rd or 4th spot are higher, and that's what was squandered.

I didn't answer your question because I assumed that it's rhetorical nature made answering it pointless. Yes, I would prefer it if the team had 2 chances at a cup in 7 years than if the team was always mediocre and missed the playoffs every year.

I notice that you ignored my questions. How could the Sens have capitalized on their opportunity to lose? Should they have benched Spezza and Karlsson? Should they have told Sherman to stick it and kept Elliott? I don't understand what it is that you wanted them to do to ensure the losses that you deem necessary to winning.

The biggest mistake they made was letting Clouston, who they already knew would be fired, play McElhinney ONCE after Anderson has already signed his contract.
One loss, ONE loss and we would be drafting 3rd overall. A difference between a Huberdeau/Landeskog and a Ryan Strome, possibly. A difference between the 3rd best player on their list to the 6th. Can you imagine if the Sens Scouts have 2 tiers in the top 10 and that 1st tier ends at 4-5 and nobody wants to trade down?
That's a potential big blow for a franchise and I am not panicking yet since the draft hasn't even happened. But I won't deny there's a serious potential for failure.

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:
Nice, just don't answer the question then.

Yeah, Ottawa blew it. I've made my position quite clear since before the season ended about this. They could have finished lower and they didn't. It's an opportunity squandered. An opportunity to draft a potential franchise player. Sure the possibility exists that we get one from the 6th spot, but the odds that we'd have gotten one from 3rd or 4th spot are higher, and that's what was squandered.

I didn't answer your question because I assumed that it's rhetorical nature made answering it pointless. Yes, I would prefer it if the team had 2 chances at a cup in 7 years than if the team was always mediocre and missed the playoffs every year.

I notice that you ignored my questions. How could the Sens have capitalized on their opportunity to lose? Should they have benched Spezza and Karlsson? Should they have told Sherman to stick it and kept Elliott? I don't understand what it is that you wanted them to do to ensure the losses that you deem necessary to winning.

marakh wrote:

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:
Nice, just don't answer the question then.

Yeah, Ottawa blew it. I've made my position quite clear since before the season ended about this. They could have finished lower and they didn't. It's an opportunity squandered. An opportunity to draft a potential franchise player. Sure the possibility exists that we get one from the 6th spot, but the odds that we'd have gotten one from 3rd or 4th spot are higher, and that's what was squandered.

I didn't answer your question because I assumed that it's rhetorical nature made answering it pointless. Yes, I would prefer it if the team had 2 chances at a cup in 7 years than if the team was always mediocre and missed the playoffs every year.

I notice that you ignored my questions. How could the Sens have capitalized on their opportunity to lose? Should they have benched Spezza and Karlsson? Should they have told Sherman to stick it and kept Elliott? I don't understand what it is that you wanted them to do to ensure the losses that you deem necessary to winning.

The biggest mistake they made was letting Clouston, who they already knew would be fired, play McElhinney ONCE after Anderson has already signed his contract.
One loss, ONE loss and we would be drafting 3rd overall. A difference between a Huberdeau/Landeskog and a Ryan Strome, possibly. A difference between the 3rd best player on their list to the 6th. Can you imagine if the Sens Scouts have 2 tiers in the top 10 and that 1st tier ends at 4-5 and nobody wants to trade down?
That's a potential big blow for a franchise and I am not panicking yet since the draft hasn't even happened. But I won't deny there's a serious potential for failure.

hemlock wrote:
Like I said, a few subtle things done differently, and we'd be celebrating drafting the guy we want as opposed to talking about trade scenarios on how to move up and get him.

SpezDispenser wrote:Hopefully we can sign Viktor Fasth to be our backup. His stats are memorizing.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=112977

SpezDispenser wrote:Hopefully we can sign Viktor Fasth to be our backup. His stats are memorizing.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=112977

sandysensfan wrote:Getting Anderson for the next 4 yrs to me is worth more than 4 spots up higher in the draft. 4 spots.. not like it's 10 spots.
I thought they were stating that there is not much difference in the top 10 for the draft this year as no clear cut superstars in this draft.
Landeskog was 1st or 2nd overall not too long ago.. but since his team got eliminated from the playoffs he is falling back. Is he any less the player now that he was then?
Huberdeau has climbed high in the standings from where we thought he would be.... because he had played longer in the playoffs on a stacked team? Is he a better player now than he was in the regular season?

Carolina got Skinner @ 7th overall... and he will probably win the Calder Trophy.

The Sens will get a good young player... let Murray do his job...

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Hopefully we can sign Viktor Fasth to be our backup. His stats are memorizing.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=112977

No comments on Bryan Murray having to say that name?

hemlock wrote:

spader wrote:

hemlock wrote:
Nice, just don't answer the question then.

Yeah, Ottawa blew it. I've made my position quite clear since before the season ended about this. They could have finished lower and they didn't. It's an opportunity squandered. An opportunity to draft a potential franchise player. Sure the possibility exists that we get one from the 6th spot, but the odds that we'd have gotten one from 3rd or 4th spot are higher, and that's what was squandered.

I didn't answer your question because I assumed that it's rhetorical nature made answering it pointless. Yes, I would prefer it if the team had 2 chances at a cup in 7 years than if the team was always mediocre and missed the playoffs every year.

I notice that you ignored my questions. How could the Sens have capitalized on their opportunity to lose? Should they have benched Spezza and Karlsson? Should they have told Sherman to stick it and kept Elliott? I don't understand what it is that you wanted them to do to ensure the losses that you deem necessary to winning.

Yawn, yet again you put words in my mouth. So I'll say it one more time to you. NEVER ONCE DID I SAY THAT TANKING WAS NECESSARY TO BUILD A WINNER. I said that it's the easiest way to build/rebuild a franchise, having lots of high picks. But it's certainly not the only way to do it (See Philly etc).

Yes, they should have tanked. Apparently, it's the "in" thing to do. Colorado gifting us Anderson, Florida being well...Florida, The Isles coming back to reality. Something could have been done. In fact, not raping Bingo for half it's roster and just staying the course would have done the trick. I'm not talking about benching stars here. Some subtle changes would have made a difference.

For me it's not just the draft standing. Although the missed opportunity sucks, it's just a part of the bigger picture I am unhappy with.