Can someone please help me out?

[icehole]

I'm conflicted.  What's the best way to build a team?  There's the old flyers way of "buying" players and "chasing the dragon" as some call it.  I had fun with it and those teams were exciting, but they didn't win the cup with those teams.

 

There's the new flyers way.  Hextall is committed to building through the draft.  That's fine, but I felt like he wasn't doing enough to make the team exciting.  Maybe things would be different if he was actually able to sign a free agent or trade for someone that can actually do something for this team.  His acquisitions and contract extensions have been terrible.  However,  I respect the fact that he has pretty much kept the team competitive through this process.

 

Then there's the "sixers" way.  Not only did they want to build through the draft, they purposely removed any player on the team that would help them win games.  They wanted the worst record in the league for three years to get the best chance of getting the #1 pick in the draft.  They succeeded with that and are now the talk of the town with a 12-26 record.  Embid is already one of the best players in the league, they are starting to beat good teams, and they still have another star in the making to add when he comes off of injury.  They could be exciting for the next decade.

 

No matter how exciting they are or will be, I still look at them as a joke.  They are cheaters and scammers that found a loophole in the system that made it easy to become a good team.  If you are still a sixers fan and you are getting excited for this sham team, you're just as bad as them and you're a poor example of a sports fan.  I hope Embid breaks his foot, Simmons gets a non-life threatening disease, the team crumbles and moves out of town.  The fake fans can leave too.

 

Now that I got that off my chest, what would flyers fans do if Hextall went the sixers route?  He could lay back in his office, feet on the desk, smoking a cigar, and tell Hak to lose.  He can dump giroux, Simmonds, voracek, and Schenn and replace them with career AHLers.  They could have ekblad, McDavid, and Matthews by now.  They could be 12-26 and have every radio and tv dork creaming themselves.  We could have chants in the stands like "trust. The. Process" and feel really cool about ourselves because we're part of something that happened because of a flawed system.  Hextall could be GM of the year without even lifting a finger.

 

I can't get behind that.  Unfortunately, there are teams that don't tank but are still bad enough to get the 1 or 2 pick.  Those teams will be better than the flyers because the flyers arent picking that high.  The Hextall way will only make the team good enough to get close and never bad enough to get the players to make them the best.

 

Again, I look at the cup teams since the lockout in 06.  How many of those teams didn't have a #1 pick or 2 or 3?  Who are the exciting teams starting to make some noise?

[Podein25]

Is life a binary proposition? 

[mojo1917]

32 minutes ago, icehole said:

If you are still a sixers fan and you are getting excited for this sham team, you're just as bad as them and you're a poor example of a sports fan

 

How so ?

because I didn't quit supporting them when they clearly and intentionally sucked ? That "process era" was disgraceful, I totally acknowledge that. The architect of that team is no longer around, but the pieces he gathered are. They are some good pieces.  There is a good coach in place, there are exciting young players that can grow together. It's is sad but the tanking has appeared to work.  this must be what it's like to be a Pens fan.

 

I know you don't really mean to call me a bad fan.  

 

Here's the thing, my love for the Sixers goes back to 1977,  they were truly the first pro sports team other than the Orioles that I cared about.  There was nothing, nothing, in sports that compared to Dr J filling the lane on a fast break in those days, it was the most thrilling thing I've ever witnessed as a sports fan. The hook was set at a young age for me.  I have liked other NBA teams but the Sixers were always my boo. It makes my heart happy that there are good players on my team again, finally.

 

[mojo1917]

@icehole

 

The losing intentionally to get a pick really only works if there is a super talent like McDavid or Crosby available.

Taylor Hall, John Tavares, Nathan McKinnon, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins are all number one picks that haven't really changed the fortunes of their clubs all that much.  

I think in basketball it is different because there are only 12 guys on a team.  In truth the Sixers should be way better for all the intentional losing they've done.  But even there, they didn't have a LeBron James to draft, until Ben Simmons, so that's the explanation for Nerlins Noel, Joel Embid and Jalil Okafor- Noel and Okafor are definitely Taylor Hall types and not, Sidney Crosby types.   

So there's luck associated with the sucking on purpose,  I am not a fan of it. Because once you start losing it's tough to get the loser stink off of you, people don't want to come to your team to play. Losing begets losing most of the time, unless a club gets extremely lucky and chances into Connor McDavid.

I am glad the Sixers are trying to put a winning product on the floor now. 

I would be saddened if the Flyers had a fire sale and followed that blueprint, that was a very long 4 years. 

[icehole]

8 minutes ago, mojo1917 said:

How so ?

because I didn't quit supporting them when they clearly and intentionally sucked ? That "process era" was disgraceful, I totally acknowledge that. The architect of that team is no longer around, but the pieces he gathered are. They are some good pieces.  There is a good coach in place, there are exciting young players that can grow together. It's is sad but the tanking has appeared to work.  this must be what it's like to be a Pens fan.

 

I know you don't really mean to call me a bad fan.  

 

Here's the thing, my love for the Sixers goes back to 1977,  they were truly the first pro sports team other than the Orioles that I cared about.  There was nothing, nothing, in sports that compared to Dr J filling the lane on a fast break in those days, it was the most thrilling thing I've ever witnessed as a sports fan. The hook was set at a young age for me.  I have liked other NBA teams but the Sixers were always my boo. It makes my heart happy that there are good players on my team again, finally.

 

A pens fan...that's exactly it...almost.  The pens built a good team to compete for over a decade by being a bad team for a decade.  I don't know too much about them through the mid 90s to the Crosby Era, but something tells me they didn't dump every player that gave them a chance to win.  They probably put players on the ice that they thought could give a good product to their fans, but they weren't good at it.  That's OK with me.

 

You don't have any resentment toward a team that wasted your time for the past 5 years?  You don't feel a little dirty by cheering for a team that did things the "easy" way to get to where they are.  Anyone, and I mean anyone could tank to get the best picks.  It takes no skill or talent to pick the highest ranked players year after year.

 

I'm sorry.  You're probably a good guy, but I hope the "process" completely fails and you feel the pain of going back to the basement again.  I'll take joy in that.  Now that I say that though, there probably isn't any pain for sixers fans.  It seems like they don't expect too much and being a joke doesn't really bother them.  They'll just hop back on when the team gets good again like nothing ever happened.

[icehole]

Oh, and because of teams like the sixers and pens and oilers and Blackhawks (people sometimes forget that the Blackhawks probably wouldn't win 1 cup without Kane and toews who were picked 1 and 3), the flyers will probably never win a championship again.  Either that or they'll be forced to go into tank mode and wait 5 years to compete again.

[mojo1917]

5 minutes ago, icehole said:

You don't have any resentment toward a team that wasted your time for the past 5 years?  You don't feel a little dirty by cheering for a team that did things the "easy" way to get to where they are.  Anyone, and I mean anyone could tank to get the best picks.  It takes no skill or talent to pick the highest ranked players year after year.

 

It was hardly easy being a fan through that mess. 

 

Look how long Edmonton has sucked, they've had 4 number one picks in the last 9 years and until the last one they never got a guy that could change the fortunes of the club.  So it isn't easy, it requires sucking at the right time. Or as some would call it luck.  Rare is the exception of the San Antonio Spurs who had a bad year because their top 3 players missed over half a season and they were able to pick Tim Duncan number one then have those hurt players recover and become a model franchise for 20 years.  

There's nothing easy about losing.

[Bertmega]

In all fairness the Penguins "suck factor" was only four seasons long. 01-04 and then their second Messiah came in 05 and things have been on the up and up for them. 

 

They are the classic outlier case, meaning they happened to really suck at the right times. See Lemieux and Crosby. 

 

Whereas, the Flyers did a great job at sucking in 2007, but not enough to suck at the lottery. 

 

#whatcouldhavebeen

#foreverchasingaleftwing

[radoran]

To answer your query:

The Detroit Red Wings picked no higher than 19 in the decade before their 2008 Cup.

 

The Anaheim Ducks took Bobby Ryan 2nd overall, but he was playing in Juniors and the AHL when they won their Cup in 2007. Their only other 1/2 pick was Oleg Tverdovsky in 1994. Getzlaf was 19th overall. Perry was 28th.

 

The Blackhawks famously got Patrick Kane first overall, but had no other 1/2 pick dating back to 1965. Toews was 3rd overall. Duncan Keith was 54th.

 

The Kings had one (Doughty in 2008). The Bruins had Tyler Seguin (3 goals, seven points in 13 playoff games in 2011). Carolina had one (Eric Staal). (FWIW, the Flyers had a #2 overall pick in the Kane draft that they eventually turned into Jordan Weal).

 

The obvious thing is the Pens, but their experience prior to being handed Crosby had resulted in them seriously contemplating moving to Kansas City.

 

But there are no guarantees no matter the strategy, The Oilers have had four first overall picks since the lockout and have five more top ten picks in that span. They haven't even made the playoffs since they went to the Final the year after the lockout.

[OccamsRazor]

1 hour ago, icehole said:

There's the new flyers way.  Hextall is committed to building through the draft.

 

 

This way is the best. The only downside for this for you as they are still in the rebuild...so you'll have to wait 3-5 years before we can truly look back with hindsight to know if it will work so i guess we sit and wait...i'm game...it is what i expected...time will tell.

[icehole]

@mojo1917

To be honest, the problem is with the system.  What logic is it to reward teams for being bad?  It makes no sense.  It usually serves a purpose though because teams that have trouble getting better can get better eventually.  They shoukd at least try though.  I have a system that makes complete sense but I won't get into that right now.

 

I'm just upset with the sixers because they took full advantage of it like filthy used car salesmen.  

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, icehole said:

I'm conflicted.  What's the best way to build a team?  There's the old flyers way of "buying" players and "chasing the dragon" as some call it.  I had fun with it and those teams were exciting, but they didn't win the cup with those teams.

 

There's the new flyers way.  Hextall is committed to building through the draft.  That's fine, but I felt like he wasn't doing enough to make the team exciting.  Maybe things would be different if he was actually able to sign a free agent or trade for someone that can actually do something for this team.  His acquisitions and contract extensions have been terrible.  However,  I respect the fact that he has pretty much kept the team competitive through this process.

 

Then there's the "sixers" way.  Not only did they want to build through the draft, they purposely removed any player on the team that would help them win games.  They wanted the worst record in the league for three years to get the best chance of getting the #1 pick in the draft.  They succeeded with that and are now the talk of the town with a 12-26 record.  Embid is already one of the best players in the league, they are starting to beat good teams, and they still have another star in the making to add when he comes off of injury.  They could be exciting for the next decade.

 

No matter how exciting they are or will be, I still look at them as a joke.  They are cheaters and scammers that found a loophole in the system that made it easy to become a good team.  If you are still a sixers fan and you are getting excited for this sham team, you're just as bad as them and you're a poor example of a sports fan.  I hope Embid breaks his foot, Simmons gets a non-life threatening disease, the team crumbles and moves out of town.  The fake fans can leave too.

 

Now that I got that off my chest, what would flyers fans do if Hextall went the sixers route?  He could lay back in his office, feet on the desk, smoking a cigar, and tell Hak to lose.  He can dump giroux, Simmonds, voracek, and Schenn and replace them with career AHLers.  They could have ekblad, McDavid, and Matthews by now.  They could be 12-26 and have every radio and tv dork creaming themselves.  We could have chants in the stands like "trust. The. Process" and feel really cool about ourselves because we're part of something that happened because of a flawed system.  Hextall could be GM of the year without even lifting a finger.

 

I can't get behind that.  Unfortunately, there are teams that don't tank but are still bad enough to get the 1 or 2 pick.  Those teams will be better than the flyers because the flyers arent picking that high.  The Hextall way will only make the team good enough to get close and never bad enough to get the players to make them the best.

 

Again, I look at the cup teams since the lockout in 06.  How many of those teams didn't have a #1 pick or 2 or 3?  Who are the exciting teams starting to make some noise?

 

Hextall and Homer and Clarke (remember they're all still in the organization) have too much affection and respect for the memory of Ed Snider to ever intentionally blow a season let alone multiple seasons. 

 

The year they were the worst and were jilted out of drafting Patrick Kane by the lottery was a tragedy because every Flyer and Flyer fan knew in his heart that the Lottery need not apply to that season.  It was in abject shame and horror that the team had to dismantle itself and Clarke had to resign.  

 

That said, what's the best way to build a team?  Probably to be mediocre enough in a non-hockey town for a number of years so your celebrity former star owner (who became part owner because the team couldn't afford to pay him) has to threaten to leave the economically foundering city you're in and have the league award you 5 top 5 picks in a row and then change the rules of how teams are build and change the rules on the ice to benefit the talent you've pooled and then have the league allow you to break the remaining rules every single night, giving you unearned power play after unearned power play while you try to develop those players in real time.  

 

You get good awful quick that way and in 7-8 years later, you're actually winning on your own merit by playing a respectably and impressive version of the game. 

 

That's my suggestion.  Go do that with your franchise. 

[mojo1917]

17 minutes ago, icehole said:

@mojo1917

To be honest, the problem is with the system.  What logic is it to reward teams for being bad?  It makes no sense.  It usually serves a purpose though because teams that have trouble getting better can get better eventually.  They shoukd at least try though.  I have a system that makes complete sense but I won't get into that right now.

 

I'm just upset with the sixers because they took full advantage of it like filthy used car salesmen.  

 

I cannot seem to like your posts, website issue, but I liked this. 

 

[radoran]

17 minutes ago, icehole said:

@mojo1917

To be honest, the problem is with the system.  What logic is it to reward teams for being bad?  It makes no sense.  It usually serves a purpose though because teams that have trouble getting better can get better eventually.  They shoukd at least try though.  I have a system that makes complete sense but I won't get into that right now.

 

The system is designed to see that teams around the league remain competitive because the overall health of the league depends on healthy franchises within it.

 

"The good get better and the bad stay terrible" isn't a reasonable way to keep any league healthy.

 

The danger is that teams can try to game the system - like the Sixers have in the NBA. That said, as you point out, they have all of 12 wins this season. Yippee! 12 whole wins! Even with Simmonds they're still years away from truly "competing."

 

Or like the Pens did or Buffalo/Edmonton in the McDavid Sweepstakes.

 

The Pens didn't become a juggernaut franchise, however. They went six years in between Cups. Los Angeles has as many Cups and they had all of one top two pick. Their #4 overall the year before Doughty never played a game for the team and they lost him on waivers (Thomas Hickey). Bernier at 11 never panned out for them. Kopitar at 11 did. The guy they got at 11 the year before those two played 5 NHL games (Lauri Tukonen).

[icehole]

21 minutes ago, radoran said:

To answer your query:

The Detroit Red Wings picked no higher than 19 in the decade before their 2008 Cup.

 

The Anaheim Ducks took Bobby Ryan 2nd overall, but he was playing in Juniors and the AHL when they won their Cup in 2007. Their only other 1/2 pick was Oleg Tverdovsky in 1994. Getzlaf was 19th overall. Perry was 28th.

 

The Blackhawks famously got Patrick Kane first overall, but had no other 1/2 pick dating back to 1965. Toews was 3rd overall. Duncan Keith was 54th.

 

The Kings had one (Doughty in 2008). The Bruins had Tyler Seguin (3 goals, seven points in 13 playoff games in 2011). Carolina had one (Eric Staal). (FWIW, the Flyers had a #2 overall pick in the Kane draft that they eventually turned into Jordan Weal).

 

The obvious thing is the Pens, but their experience prior to being handed Crosby had resulted in them seriously contemplating moving to Kansas City.

 

But there are no guarantees no matter the strategy, The Oilers have had four first overall picks since the lockout and have five more top ten picks in that span. They haven't even made the playoffs since they went to the Final the year after the lockout.

Nice job.  There are a few exceptions.  Carolina was post lockout but the league hadn't really changed at that point.  The flyers did lose out in 07 and they could have collapsed because of it.  Instead, they were 2 games from winning a championship in 10.  

 

I still have butterfly effect theory about that.  If the flyers got Kane, they win the cup in 2010 if not sooner.  They don't panic to get bryz and they don't send Carter and Richards away.  The Blackhawks are a middle of the pack team until they hire a new GM in 2014 (Ron hextall).  The flyers win a few more cups because LA isn't as good without 2 key players and we're talking about how the flyers didn't it the right way.  I really think it could have gone down like that.

[ruxpin]

4 minutes ago, icehole said:

 

I still have butterfly effect theory about that.  If the flyers got Kane, they win the cup in 2010 if not sooner.

 

I don't know if the Flyers win the Cup.  Possibly. Arguably.

 

But one thing is certain:   The Black Hawks DON'T.

[radoran]

Just now, icehole said:

Nice job.  There are a few exceptions.  Carolina was post lockout but the league hadn't really changed at that point.  The flyers did lose out in 07 and they could have collapsed because of it.  Instead, they were 2 games from winning a championship in 10.  

 

I still have butterfly effect theory about that.  If the flyers got Kane, they win the cup in 2010 if not sooner.  They don't panic to get bryz and they don't send Carter and Richards away.  The Blackhawks are a middle of the pack team until they hire a new GM in 2014 (Ron hextall).  The flyers win a few more cups because LA isn't as good without 2 key players and we're talking about how the flyers didn't it the right way.  I really think it could have gone down like that.

 

You know, I'm not sure about Kane. I know a lot of people who grew up with him in Buffalo and I'm not entirely certain that he would have had the same career in Philadelphia that he has in Chicago - given the nature of the "leadership" on the team at the time.

 

Toews was the perfect "all business" foil to Kane. If Richards was having "the problems" that many allege, it might not have been a conducive atmosphere for Kane.

 

1 minute ago, ruxpin said:

I don't know if the Flyers win the Cup.  Possibly. Arguably.

 

But one thing is certain:   The Black Hawks DON'T.

 

Well, who knows how JVR develops with a Toews centering him?

 

The Blackhawks definitely benefitted from Kane, but they had a lot more talent on the roster that might not have been limited to "middle of the pack."

[icehole]

18 minutes ago, radoran said:

 

The system is designed to see that teams around the league remain competitive because the overall health of the league depends on healthy franchises within it.

 

"The good get better and the bad stay terrible" isn't a reasonable way to keep any league healthy.

 

The danger is that teams can try to game the system - like the Sixers have in the NBA. That said, as you point out, they have all of 12 wins this season. Yippee! 12 whole wins! Even with Simmonds they're still years away from truly "competing."

 

Or like the Pens did or Buffalo/Edmonton in the McDavid Sweepstakes.

 

The Pens didn't become a juggernaut franchise, however. They went six years in between Cups. Los Angeles has as many Cups and they had all of one top two pick. Their #4 overall the year before Doughty never played a game for the team and they lost him on waivers (Thomas Hickey). Bernier at 11 never panned out for them. Kopitar at 11 did. The guy they got at 11 the year before those two played 5 NHL games (Lauri Tukonen).

I don't want the cup winner to get the #1 pick and the worst team to get the last pick.  Can't we reward teams for winning though?

 

My system would have the first team out of the playoffs (17th) getting the #1 pick, the worst team getting the 14th pick, 16 gets the 15, 15 gets the 16, 14 gets the 17, and so on.  The message this sends is "you gave it your all but you just aren't good enough to make the playoffs.  Use the #1 pick to get you into the playoffs".  Most bubble playoff teams wouldn't tank to fall to the 17th rank.  "You weren't good this year...in fact you were the worst.  I can't give you a top pick, but hopefully you can do something at 14".  Now the worst team has to work harder to get better.  "Congratulations...you won the cup.  It's obvious you don't need anymore help.  You get 30."

[ruxpin]

5 minutes ago, radoran said:

Well, who knows how JVR develops with a Toews centering him?

 

The Blackhawks definitely benefitted from Kane, but they had a lot more talent on the roster that might not have been limited to "middle of the pack."

 

Maybe on the first part.   But I think JVR's personal constitution ultimately prevents him from being as good as he should be.  I just think he's soft.   But yeah, maybe something different happens with him with Toews & Keith, et al.

 

The second point:   They had a very good team.   They are still a contender without Kane.   But I don't know if they overcome a drop from Kane to JVR or Turris.

 

But the thing is, if the Black Hawks don't win the lottery, they pick 5th (not 2nd).  So JVR really isn't in the discussion for them (or Turris, for that matter).  

 

They likely would have had the choice of Hickey, Karl Alzner, Sam Gagner (yeah, him) or Voracek.

 

Anyway, Chicago is still probably a strong team without Kane.   But I think that changes their win in 2010.

[AJgoal]

Just now, ruxpin said:

 

 

They likely would have had the choice of Hickey, Karl Alzner, Sam Gagner (yeah, him) or Voracek.

 

 

Or Couture. Or Shattenkirk (!) or McDonagh.

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

 

I don't know if the Flyers win the Cup.  Possibly. Arguably.

 

But one thing is certain:   The Black Hawks DON'T.

 

It's really hard to say isn't it?  Part of the reason the Flyers made it that far was just their mojo that they build on adrenaline.

They wouldn't have gotten into the playoffs on a Boucher save at the last play of the season.

They wouldn't have needed to come back from being down 3-0 to the Bruins.

Do they then manage to dominate the Canadiens riding that high?

What teams would they even have drawn for that matter?  

 

2010 was a really unlikely set of circumstances.  I'm not sure a team that was actually better would have faired as well... strange as it sounds.  But certainly if they could have inserted Kane into exactly the same scenario, yes.  They definitely would have won the cup.  

 

This is why I hate the lottery.  Though I understand why it's there... It just hasn't really helped.   The Pens still stunk for years, the Oilers still stunk for years.  It hasn't stopped anyone from stinking for picks.

[murraycraven]

[ruxpin]

For me, the answer to the OP's initial question is an easy one:

 

The current game plan the Flyers are using.   It's actually quite similar to what the Phillies did in the 3-5 years prior to their World Series win.

 

The mid-1990s were fun/exciting but ultimately the teams were built with fatal flaws.

The team that lost to Tampa in the semi-finals (was it 2004?) was one of the most fun teams since the 80s teams for me.   That was largely a bought team, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it.   I don't know that that team was flawed.  It just ran into a Tampa team that was very good and just won an extra home game in the semis.  I still want to believe that if they win that game 7 they have a very good chance to win it all.  I still have the visual image of a very spent Mark Recchi and others bent over their sticks in despair when the final buzzer sounded.  They knew they were that close, too.

 

But if you want a chance to be consistently good and have a chance for several years in a row, I like the current plan.

 

I don't like the Sixers way.   At all.   I remember with @mojo1917 Dr. J sweeping into the lane and seemingly flying.   I remember Darryl Dawkins smashing the backboards.   And, of course, Moses, Cheeks, Jones, etc. etc.   And the battles with the Celtics and the Lakers.    Good memories.   Basketball was not my first love or even top 3, but that was fun.

 

They are trying to come back now, but they have been an embarrassing joke of a franchise.  Mojo is a good fan.  He's not a bandwagon guy.  And he comes across as a pretty cool cat.   No one is saying he isn't, but I want to make sure he understands I'm not trying to insult him when I can't see myself ever supporting that franchise.  What they did for 5 years was simply disgusting and stealing from the 20 fans who still remained faithful enough to go to the game.

 

What really pissed me off is the number of times that cesspool was shown on CSN Philly the same night as a Flyers' game but the Flyers' were bumped to TCN.   Now it doesn't matter, but as little as a couple years ago, TCN wasn't in HD.   And then, after the Sixers lost a game they had no intention of winning (while the Flyers won, lost, or whatever the same night) I'd watch Sportsnet Central the next morning and  had to suffer through 10 minutes of Dei Lynam drone on like a stoned trucker with a sinus infection about what went wrong (other than her being offered a job for something she could not suck more at --too bad the Sixers didn't also tank to draft an actual television reporter)  AFTER waiting ten minutes for Sportsnet Central to tell me about what some random Eagle had for breakfast.

 

I'd feel badly for folks like Mojo who have supported them for decades, but I personally wouldn't care if that franchise moved to Aleppo.

 

So definitely hell no on that process.

 

 

Ultimately, any of the processes are a crap shoot.  Like was said, even the Sixer or Edmonton way takes a fair amount of luck and things falling right.   Going out and buying players fails more often than it works.   A last piece, yeah, but even that often amounts to things falling right.    The build from the draft way clearly also has dependency on luck that the scouts were right more than they were wrong AND the draft fell the way it needed to.

 

So, if you're asking what process we prefer, I guess it ultimately comes down to what brand of hockey we prefer.  there's no wrong or right answer here, just personal preference.   I go with watching a bunch of kids grow together and a team grow into a unit over time and, hopefully, climaxing in winning what they all worked for.

 

It basically comes down to

1) Do you like the chase, the work, and the foreplay so the climax is better or

2) Are you okay just paying for a hooker or

3) Do you just lie in the street naked until you're just lucky enough that someone falls on you just right.

 

I'm good with #1.  YMMV

[fan4ever]

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

 

So, if you're asking what process we prefer, I guess it ultimately comes down to what brand of hockey we prefer.  there's no wrong or right answer here, just personal preference.   I go with watching a bunch of kids grow together and a team grow into a unit over time and, hopefully, climaxing in winning what they all worked for.

 

It basically comes down to

1) Do you like the chase, the work, and the foreplay so the climax is better or

2) Are you okay just paying for a hooker or

3) Do you just lie in the street naked until you're just lucky enough that someone falls on you just right.

 

I'm good with #1.  YMMV

 

Rux,

 

Nice analogy!  #1 is my choice as well.  

[mojo1917]

12 hours ago, ruxpin said:

 I'm not trying to insult him when I can't see myself ever supporting that franchise.

I get it, 

wonderful post.

I think I'll go with #1 also.