View Single Post
07-03-2008, 02:11 PM
Registered User
dedalus's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Edge View Post
I don't see how. The Rangers didn't stand a chance to Zherdev then and had to pay a price to get him now.

That's like saying the Rangers made up for 98 draft when they got Gomez.

I just don't see the connection because the debate will always be about who the Rangers should've had in the first place, not who they traded for later.

They key is to add guys via trades and signings to the players you've already drafted and/or developed.

To me this trade is unrelated to how we drafted. Just like going out and getting a good player from the 2002 draft doesn't magically make up for that circus situation.
Why must you inject logic into this apologetic? We all know the purpose of trades is to make up for poor drafting, so when a trade does that, it negates the poor drafting, and everyone should shut up about failed draft picks.

dedalus is offline   Reply With Quote