View Single Post
Old
11-05-2008, 02:37 PM
  #89
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vipernsx View Post
Lets think about this.....

If you're to trade Dawes, what would you get in return? Not really much, he's a small unproven player showing decent offensive potential. Maybe you can get a pick or a prospect maybe even upgrade a pick or two.

Well lets take a history lesson and rewind to the day's of Neil Smith when he was left up to his own devices of regularly trading away youth rather than taking the time to develop it. This is of course the time before Glenn Sather. Sather who took over a team with no home grown talent and no farm system, developed both and has now made a team that regularly makes the playoffs. Lets roll back to 1999. The Rangers had a young player by the name of Marc Savard. He was young, showed some offensive potential, but often got lost in the mix with larger players because of his small size, especially at a young age when still learning the NHL game. Savard had good hands and speed and was a decent scorer in juniors, 43 goals his last year. The Rangers, impatient to develop (maybe incapable), traded him and got a fairly good return too. An opportunity to move up in the draft and grab a guy who was sure to be part of the future of the organization and they even got an European fellow who might come over to the NHL some day. What's now.....Savard is one of the best play making pivots in the game, Jan Hlavac had 1 decent year with the Rangers and is probably best described as a part time NHLer and Jamie Lundmark was part of the bust of the 1999 draft.

When a team has a young talented player, they should develop him, not toss him away. Not all of them work out, some of them will. Throwing them all away before giving them a chance doesn't help you. At 23 in his sophomore year, he hasn't had enough time to show he's incapable. All he's done at this point is show he has some abilities but lack consistency. Not every guy drafted is a Toews or Stamkos who will be immediately an impact player.

If you don't think developing your team from within is formula for success, explain why Glenn Sather who has done that, has been successful, and Neil Smith's tenure is more of a Boom & Bust where there was a single short lived high followed by a long and dreary depression? Want more evidence? Look at Colorado and Detriot. Two teams who've had long term success in recent history. Both were only able to accomplish this through their ability to constant bring players up through their own system. Oh, btw, take a look at the Devils too, they do the same thing. They're like the friggin Borg.
No one agrue anything you posted. You cannot blame fans for wanting a DOMINANT performer. We all know that a young player may not be consistent, but he MUST show signs of dominance briefly. Dawes failed to do it in NHL, while he was quite solid in Hartford. Why? One word : TIME. He is slow. That is something Savard never was. Savard was small, but fast. By fast do not mean skating speed, but rather playing speed. The only reason Dawes is playing, thre is no one to replace him. Therefore the calls to rid of him do not make much sense. Plus, he is better then Drury with respect to expectations as well as pay vs. production part.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote