I'm well aware that you claim that regular season and playoff hockey are way more different than they are in order to dismiss relevant information. The issue here is the inconsistency. When it was a team that lost in the playoffs after an incredibly successful season, you claimed the rest of the season was irrelevant, and we should only look at playoff outcomes - no context necessary. When it was a team that was incredibly successful in the playoffs after struggling through the season, you claimed that the playoff outcomes were irrelevant, and we should only look at the regular season. When faced with this contradiction, you said that "results in both tell you the quality". So I asked how you weight each one, and you refuse to answer. Instead, you seem to have reverted back to suggesting that everything that happens in the regular season is completely irrelevant and worthless and tells you absolutely nothing about a team. I asked you what sample size we need for the playoffs, since you stripped contender status for 1 series while refusing to assign it for 4, and you refuse to answer that too. You say sample size is important, and yet you seem perfectly fine ignoring it.
Do you understand regular season hockey is different than playoff hockey?
He absolutely did. Whether you agree with the moves themselves or not, he addressed areas of need, filled roles, and pivoted quickly when necessary. If anybody is showing red flags in this regard, it's Treliving. He didn't really address anything that needed addressing, and seemed to forget entire roles and attributes existed.
Again, we're back to Dubas being perfect and we only lost again and again.... and again.... and again.... because of bad luck.
Too focused on 'snot', which accomplished nothing.
O'Reilly, Acciari, Schenn, Lafferty..... Adding snot is so dumb....
No, you just weren't listening. You called any context (and many of the factors you are now pointing to) irrelevant until the GM switched to Treliving.
You just did the thing in the blurb above...
No, we've established that Treliving chose to re-sign Samsonov, and then chose to go into the playoffs with no goalie changes. With hindsight, we know that there were other goalies that did better this year. So the question is, is it okay to use hindsight against a GM when the choice made at the time was reasonable? Should we consider the situation and realistic options or just demand results?
When most people predicted Dubas' failures, hindsight doesn't help.
Treliving walked into a goalie coming off a good season - that Treliving had the choice and cap space to re-sign - and a backup signed to a great contract. If you think that's a bad situation, then the answer to your question is that we didn't draft one of a few goalies a decade ago.
So are we using hindsight or not?
The roster wasn't in shambles, and we didn't go all in with UFA rentals last year.
The roster was a mess....
because we went all in with a pile of UFA rentals.
Our net asset loss for pending UFAs was Sandin/2nd/3rd/4th.
That's a lot.... especially when you add in the other 1st and 2nd we spent on a #4/5 defenseman and a 4th line winger.
Treliving chose to not re-sign them
We didn't have the cap space to sign them and fill out the roster.
we had a number of internal graduates
Which internal guys were added to last year's play-off roster?
Nick Robertson, who scored 0 points in 6 play-off games this year.
Pontus Holmberg, who scored 0 points in 7 play-off games this year.
Bobby McMann, who was injured and played 0 play-off games.
and plenty of cap space to replace players and address what needed addressing.
16.5 million in cap space isn't much when you need to sign so many significant positions.
We lucked into having Murray's contract off the books all year.
While we had traded some picks over the years like any team in our position, we still had plenty of assets, and we had drafted well and held onto the prospects.
Yeah, we're swimming in assets.....
