#24 – Not Sure If Serious or Playing Dumba

[dekedangle_rpf_mod]

This is the twenty-fourth post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means. 
9. No discussing trolling, individual trolls, or their efforts.





Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

If you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to The Mod Post. 

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Comments

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

da

The way I use "rebuild" (and see it used very often) is when a team is making moves to make a team better in the long run instead of making moves that will help them win games now, which obviously happens through some level of roster turnover. But either way, the point still stands -- you said the Hawks will just rebuild once they're crappy, but the crappiness has already started to set in, and they still have their generational talent and core signed to mammoth contracts. No matter what any haters say, I'm sure any fans would take being in that position if it meant three cups in six years. But while some of the Hawks' moves that are hurting them now were very obviously a worthwhile trade off for those cups (Keith, Hossa contracts), other ones seem like they are trapping the Hawks in a no man's land where they can't contend or rebuild (Toews, Kane contracts), foolish mistakes that they especially can't afford in that position (Scuderi trade), or unforeseen longterm costs of earlier moves (losing Saad and Teravainen).

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I did not say the Hawks would just rebuild once they are crappy. I said if they were so crappy they came in last place and got the first overall pick, they'd *start* rebuilding.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

I'd be generous enough to round that down to a bottom four pick, with the new lottery system and all. But you need a couple of those.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

But that's exactly the problem. They're NOT going to be bad enough to come in last and get the first place draft pick next year. Depending on one's outlook on their immediate future, they might arguably be in a better position if they were. And if they are smart, they should be thinking to rebuild before they get to that point, not after. The problem is if they spend years not good to really contend OR bad that they will be able to get good picks/think to start shipping guys out. And it will be even worse if they aren't good enough to contend but try to anyway, and expend even more future resources trying to do so.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

da

I... think you just described the usual road to The True Rebuild? That second bit is pretty much definitely what's going to happen. I'm just kinda confused about what this has to do with them "rebuilding" or not; it kinda feels like we're just tiptoeing around The Last Question (of Hockey).

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

da

I mean, "the second bit" is not good for any team and should be avoided in general.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

And yet, it is inevitable.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

But whether they should or not, no one does that! It doesn't make the Hawks special in some way that they aren't going to avoid it.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

What I understood from airt's point is that the Hawks' potential decline isn't a big deal because if they are a last place team next year, they will rebuild. But being a last place team isn't year is far from the worst case scenario, and a lot of the times being in last place comes about as a result of a rebuild, not a cause. I don't know what you mean about The Last Question, I'm just trying to point out that using the Hawks coming in last place as a hypothetical rock bottom is imo off base. And the problem with the Hawks too is that even if they are smart enough to recognize the right time to rebuild, they are in a uniquely difficult position where they might not be able to anyways. It's not as easy as "they will become Bad next year and then they can start to rebuild to become Good again." The years of mediocrity may well continue to hurt their long-term future, in more ways than just not having high draft picks.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

Da

*Shudders* Years of unmemorable mediocrity and consistently picking 12-16. I remember it all too well.

Yeah, uh, the only way to rectify that is to get real lucky and draft a superstar in the later rounds.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

But what does that have to do with the Pens?

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I'm fairly sure the original AYRT wasn't saying it wouldn't be a big deal if the Blackhawks sucked and got #1 next year, they were saying shifting around the bottom 3/4ths of their teams in the following decline wouldn't count as rebuilding. They have to start from scratch, in many years after everything good in their system has rotted away. So... I guess you guys are basically saying the same thing? Which is why the arguing confused me.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

This is a tangent to the rebuild discussion but I'd like to challenge the use of the 'generational talent' term here. I think you may mean franchise players/core instead?

Crosby is a generational talent and so is McDavid. (Some called Eichel that in his draft year, but it seems unlikely they'll continue doing so.) There is only one player at the Crosby-level right now and that's Crosby. When McDavid reaches Crosby-level, Crosby will no longer be that good. Generational players are meant to be peerless within their age group and functionally within the league. There's (usually) only 1, maybe 2, generational player(s) at a time.

Presumably you're talking about Toews and Kane, maybe Keith when you used the term. The're elite and certainly franchise players but there are a handful of players of their type at this time in the league. And that's generally true of players at that tier. Bergeron and Kopitar are the Toews comparables. Ovi, Kessel, and Stamkos for Kane maybe (in terms of being elite pure scorers types, not necessarily style comparables and I know Stammer's a C). And Keith is quite similar to Letang and Doughty.

Just thought I'd throw this out there. Obviously these 3 players are HoF shoe-ins, but generational player is a label that really should be used more rarely.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

"Generational" as a designation isn't, and hasn't ever been, meant to be as literal as you're taking it here. I mean, I actually do agree on some of your thoughts as far as who is or who isn't, but the idea that There Can Only Be One is not what that term is mean to convey. Not to mention that your concession that Actually There Could Maybe Be Two undercuts your entire argument. Sure, there could be a more apropos term for it, but this isn't a fucking dictionary.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

You're right that the thinking I used while writing this comment is stricter than in colloquial usage.

That's probably due to how much I absorbed the recent discussions surrounding McDavid as part of that succession of generational players. It's been a while since I watched the pre-draft stuff but Canadian media had more than a few TV packages that pretty much said that the generational player title could only be limited to Gretzky, Lindros, Lemieux, and Crosby. With McDavid probably in tehre down the line.

Not coincidentally all those guys are Canadian, so there was definitely bias there that I hadn't thought of until I'd already posted my comment. Ovi and Malkin definitely have been discussed as being generational too.

You're right that the Highlander/There Can Only Be One thing does sound ridiculous. But I do still think there's merit to logic they used that someone can only be a generational player if they're consistently the league's best player. It's just that in the modern NHL domination/separation from the pack seems to be more difficult than before.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

da

This comment makes you sound like you are very New and still figuring things out -- and if so, that is genuinely great, and a very fun process! but also maybe not the best basis from which you should police how other people use incredibly common terms whose usage no one can agree on anyways. There is already enough brouhaha over who's a generational player without you telling us that Crosby is the only true generational player because Canadian media told you so (especially if you are watching Canadian media and the possibility of their bias didn't occur to you until now).

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

NA

I'd argue that Ovechkin is also a generational talent, purely because he's one of the best scorers of all time, but yeah, right now it's just him and Crosby. He's already 33rd all time in goals scored with 525, and literally the only other person drafted after the year 2000 in the top 100 is Nash, at 99th with 393.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

It occurred to me shortly after posting the comment that it may start wank over whether Ovi and Malkin may be generational talents as well. I've certainly heard them called such, though to a lesser extent than Crosby.

I don't disagree with the argument for Ovi as you present it. Although I am a bit conflicted over whether generational players are Highlanders and 'There Can Only Be One' as above anon has said. I guess it depends on who you ask and a lot of pundits last year were firmly on the side of 'only Crosby right now (and previously 3 other Canadians)'!

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

Hey, there are technically two Highlanders, so.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

If you're including both Ovi and Sid, then you've got to throw Malkin in there too- him and Sid are the only two active players with PPG over 1, and I think people really underestimate how much he's been slowed down by injuries.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

There are also some still active players whose PPG were over 1 back when they were Malkin and Crosby's age, but slowed down in their 30s.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

NA

I would argue Ovechkin as, at least, a generational goalscorer, if not the best of all time. He has a real shot to be first all time in goals.

I don't think McDavid is in the discussion yet, and if he is I would argue that's media bias. He hasn't even played a full season, he hasn't even played a consecutive half season.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I used the phrase "generational talent" because the airt used it, it was already pretty clear what they meant without nitpicking and arguing over semantics, and I didn't want to start wank about what a generational talent is and WHO is a generational talent, especially when the players under discussion were Kane, Toews, Crosby, and Malkin. I believe that you meant well by your comment but it comes off as really condescending -- I don't think that people who got into a long argument about the minutiae of rebuilds needed it explained that Crosby and McDavid are rare players and better than other players.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

To be fair to the AYRT, I meant it somewhere between how you are both interpreting it. You're wrong, I was not including Kane & Toews in my comment. As the AYRT says, they aren't generational talents. They are franchise players. I'm not sure how you could have thought I was including them in a comment about whether the Penguins qualified as a rebuild. However, I was not limiting it to Crosby. I was allowing the possiblity of that generational talent may include Malkin, which is why I wrote "person(s)." So, I'm not being as strict as the AYRT or as loosey-goosey as you.

Re: What is <i>up</i> with your team? –– non-SCF edition

[(Anonymous)]

We were talking about the Pens in the context of whether or not the Hawks could do a "quick rebuild." I see what you meant now, but I'm not sure how you could possibly think that your usage was that clear when it sounded like you were talking about the general definition of a rebuild when you said "your team's generational talent can't stay them same in a rebuild." I didn't think by that phrasing you would be using generational talent to talk about something that by that definition only one team or two teams have. I didn't realize you meant specifically and only Crosby and Malkin, so it struck me as a strange phrase but I just mirrored your word choice in my reply (and added "core" as what I had assumed you meant). I am well aware of what Kane and Toews are and aren't. I just had no interest in opening up another discussion about your use of that term in case we disagreed.