Peak Performance, Longevity, or Consistency?

Question

YOU are drafting for your NHL team. There are 3 players available, you have to decide which one you want.The good news is a friendly oracle has told you all 3 are future hall-of-famers, and furthermore, the oracle knows what kind of career each will have.

"Peter Peak" will struggle in his first few years and have injury problems that will cause him to hang it up after only 10 years. However, in between he will have the greatest 2 or 3 seasons anyone has had in the history of the NHL, where he is untouchable.

"Larry Longevity" will have a couple of "off years" and will never win the Hart Trophy, but will mostly have good solid seasons. He will play over 20 years for your organization.

Finally, "Charlie Consistency" will play about 15 years and have the best AVERAGE season of the 3, never really having EITHER an "outstanding" OR "poor" season.

Which do you pick and why?

The question is really which QUALITY in a player do you value most? Since, some of you are "cheating" I am going to add the rule that you CANNOT trade Peter Peak later. You're stuck with him.

Answer 1

Ideally I'd like to have a combo of the three ( a Joe Sakic or Stevie Y) but since I must choose I'd say I'd take Charlie Consistency.

I'd want a player that's going to play well but someone that I can build a team around and have them be the corner stone for a fairly long time. I mean, if you could have someone that'll play well for a very long time like those two players I mentioned, wouldn't you? They were/are both long time players (in their case, captains) and both quite good but even if I could get one that'd play half as well as them for just as long, I'd jump on that in a heart beat.

I wouldn't pick Larry because I figure that if a player is holding on that long and isn't playing at the level of a Stevie Y he's doing more harm than good. If you can't produce like the upper tier players of the league after 15 years, that player should hang it up because there are plenty of young players with fresh legs under them that can put up the same numbers for a lot less money.

As far a Peter Peak. Someone like that is great for that time that they're playing so well, but they're more than likely going to bring a higher price tag that they might not deserve as they might have a year or two before when they were top notch. Think about Jose Theodore for Colorado. The man one a Veznia trophy, brought a hefty price tag, and is now riding the bench and tying up a HUGE amount of cap money that could be better spent elsewhere. Bertuzzi is another one that had a great season not too long ago and is nothing but a playing tying up some money. Adding a Peter Peak is great at a trade for a playoff push but not someone that I'd personally like to have on my roster for any longer than that.

But hey, what the hell do I know about building a team?

Answer 2

i would go with Larry Longevity, two bad years can be cause by minor injuries. and a player in today's NHL having a good solid seasons average in the 60's to 80 points season which is good over a 20 year career which i would also consider him as a true leader on and off the ice. so i would give him the C after a few years in the league. can be a great leader in the playoffs.

Charlie sounds good but consistency to me is he will either have several years of 30 goals per season but could fall apart in the playoffs.

and Peter Peak could have 2 or 3 of the greatest season in league history but it doesn't mean you will win a cup. and he would probably ask for to much money and if you spend all that money on this type of player it can hurt you in the long run on players like Larry Longevity which you will not be able to afford because of what your paying Peak. and injuries can slow him down also he could only be playing maybe 60 to 70 games a season and could be out some of the playoffs which will hurt your teams chemistry.



GO HABS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Answer 3

Oh this is an easy one, I'd take Peter Peak. Since I've spoken to an all knowing oracle, I will know exactly what to expect. So I will wait our Peter's early struggles, enjoy his 2 all-time great seasons and then immediately trade him for a couple of high end prospects, a couple of first round picks and a couple of second rounders. Then my teams fans will not only have had the joy of witnessing the two single greatest seasons by an NHL player ever, they will watch their team continue to be a force for years because of the massive overpayment for a player that I secretly knew would not produce much the rest of his career. It's all about asset management!

Answer 4

Well, I'll pass on "Double P". I'd rather have someone who can stay healthy, despite losing the obvious substantial scoring effort he would give.

"Double C" (or "a nice rack" as I jokingly called him in the Draft War-room) would be a good pick and would be even better if he had some brute force to go along with him. Why didn't she tell me that?

Now, "Larry L" sounds like a Stevie Y to me. I think, given what Stevie Y was like, I'll go with Mr. Longevity. Granted, he won't light up the board like "Peter" but he'll still get the puck in the net, despite the 2 or 3 bad seasons. I'll build my team around him.

Answer 5

Depends on what round it is. The first round I'm going to pick Peak and trade him later since I know all this, second round Charlie and keep him, and later I'm going to pick Larry.

In terms of long term who would I rather have on my team, I would pick peak. He will bring a lot of attention to the team, and when he starts slipping I can trade him or lower his salary. If I can draft one like him every year and have a few Larrys in there, I'm pretty set. And pull in a few Charlie's in the meantime... And you're good.

You really need a mix in order to win. One won't ever cut it.

Answer 6

Take the Alero. Oldsmobile constructed them. A CRX is a overseas automobile, and overseas vehicles are almost by no means constructed with any variety of excellent (With a couple of exceptions). Oldsmobile constructed vehicles with top excellent components and care within the layout and construct system. Definitely pass with the Alero so long as it does not have any essential issues or something. Aleros are reasonably strong, very relaxed, and risk-free.

Answer 7

Charlie Consistency would be best in my opinion. He would be consistent, which would be what i look for in my teams. That way you know he will always play his hardest, giving it all he has, and not being a show off pansy.

Answer 8

Sidney Crosby