View Single Post
Old
12-22-2009, 03:46 PM
  #33
FlyersRKings
Registered User
 
FlyersRKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Philly suburbs
Country: United States
Posts: 139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dig Out Your Soul View Post
Of course they would. I'm just asking the question how much do we really gain by trading two of our best offensive players for one guy? If we're talking Crosby, Malkin, or Ovechkin, then yeah you do it. You're taking on a ****load of salary for, potentially, a decrease in the total goals you score.

If Carter can score 46 and look like 50 is well within reach, and Giroux develops into even a 60 point player, what do you gain by paying Kovalchuk $10M? I think you gain a superstar but lose depth, important cap space, our only centre with size, and you end up losing goals - and you don't have the cap money to just pick up someone else to replace those goals.

...nevermind the idea of throwing in JVR.

We sacrificed offensive depth for Pronger this year and I think it's a contributing factor to sucking. Carter and Richards aren't good enough to carry teams offensively - they need help. But that's where we should be able to beat the Capitals and Pens - we can afford depth. Don't trade more of it away for one big-ticket player. Too many people are obsessed with this idea of superstars right now. We need this team to come together and play as a team.
Don't forget that we may as well not have had an offense over the last 17 games. That's a hell of a 'slump' for someone of Carter's supposed calibre.

You also suggest that Carter and Giroux are the equivalent, combined, of a Crosby or a Malkin. That's laughable, and the problem. Kovalchuk is well worth that asking price.

The only offensive weapon we sacrificed for Pronger was Lupul, and he was the weakest of the 20 goal scorers on the team. Powe has more than made up for him in my mind.

Nobody is an 'offensive weapon' right now.

FlyersRKings is offline   Reply With Quote