View Single Post
08-22-2004, 07:03 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,471
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
Well that is certainly a valid point -- they lose a guy who was only there when they won a cup and they only won a cup while he was there. In exchange they get a guy who was there when they didn't win a cup. It comes down to how much you feel Stillman had to do with them winning the cup and how little of that you think Prospal can replace. Personally I don't think there is anything Stillman brings that Prospal doesn't. To me it comes down to losing two low 2nd round picks to save considerable money. In today's NHL, I see that as a fairly lateral move overall. It may not be the kind of move you'd make if you were in charge, but Tampa always seems to have a watchful eye on the checkbook, so it fits them.
I don't know how "valid" it is. I'd call it reasonable. Of course, it's impossible to refute, but pretty much impossible to "validate" because the team didn't play in a vacuum. As I pointed out Prospal being replaced by Stillman was not the only change in the Lightning. Sydor and Cibak/Perrin were also changes in the playoff roster. Not a lot of changes, but changes nonetheless. To suggest that these had ZERO impact or the continued maturing of the roster as a whole had ZERO impact would be "invalid." Of course, they are reasonable factors as well. We'll never know. I can't imagine that Stillman was the SOLE reason for the 13 point regular season improvement or getting past the 2nd round and if Prospal had still been on the team they wouldn't have had a better season than 2002-2003.

It simply doesn't seem very logical to predict disaster (or that it will be the crux of any downfall this season) for the Lightning by making this single move. Both players are ultimately complimentary players who produced a lot of points in that role. They both had their best seasons with the same guys around them in the same system.

The fact reamains that Prospal was 2nd in scoring in 2001-2002 and then lead the team in 2002-2003 and the team started to improve. He was clearly a part of that. Now he's back and there's no reason to think they suffer in any broad sense. After all, the roster is essentially the same. The Top 2 lines will be the same and only Afanasenkov and Cibak look to be changes at Forward from 2002-2003. Replace Cullimore with Sydor and the defense is barely changed. So some change in roster and presumably chemistry. But not drastic. If his linemates were different or over the hill or whatever I'd feel differently.

I recognize the fact that argued changes in the roster had an effect early in the post and at the end argue the changes weren't a huge impact. To clarify, my point is that you can never tell for absolute sure how any moves truly effect a team because there is constant flux. Sometimes subtle. Sometimes not. That's why I find the extreme opinions perplexing.

Just for are some more banana's...

LastoftheBrunnenG is offline