View Single Post
01-20-2005, 07:19 AM
True Blue
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,006
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JohnnyChoice
My reasoning for the Lindros deal being Sather's best is this: Lindros is the best player Slats brought in here, and really did not give up much. Barnaby was good in terms of getting something for nothing, but in terms of being an impact player, there is really no comparison.
Granted he should have been rebuilding from the get, but he didnt, and the question is what is the best trade Sather made, not what trades should he have made. It certainly wasnt Eric's fault that this team missed the playoffs. Perhaps if there had been any kind of supporting cast, and if Messier hadnt been playing 20 minutes a night it would be a different story. As far as I can remember, it was just those three players, no draft pick involved.
There was a draft pick involved. Another 1st rounder. And the trade was an utter disaster. What made it incredible was that Jackass KNOWINGLY traded for damaged goods. NO ONE expected for Lindros to survive without incurring another concussion or two. And that is exactly what happened. Saying that Jackass did not give up much is also technically not right. You have to look at things at the time of the trade. Hlavac was coming off a 30 (or upper 20's) goal season. His value was never higher. Brendl was not a bust yet, and was thought of being one of the better prospects in the league. Point being was that the Lindros trade was just another classic example of Sather's atrocious misuse of assets. If he was intent on getting rid of those assets, then he could have done better than a broken down former star. Lindros, like Bure, did NOTHING to make the Rangers better. The Rangers were a bunch of loosers throughout Eric's entire tenure. For what Sather gave up (and let's remember to think of it in terms of the value at time of the trade), Clarke was made to look like a genius.

True Blue is offline