View Single Post
07-07-2010, 08:28 AM
Registered User
phillyfanatic's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
We're not talking about a team game here. We're talking about the decision a single man made with the assets at his disposal, and the logical justification for making that decision (to win a Stanley Cup). If that deal isn't about getting that done, then you don't make that deal. You're conflating two things that are not one and the same. It is not Chris Pronger's fault (exclusively) if we fail to win a Cup... that's not even Holmgren's "fault," per se. It's just the stakes of the deal he made...
The purpose for the trade was not to win a Stanley Cup, no single trade will give you that. It was to give the Flyers a chance to win the Stanley Cup. There are so many other things that need to happen along the way in order to capture that prize, but in trading for Chris Pronger Holmgren greatly increased the likelihood of a cup in Philadelphia. I for you will NEVER question this deal. If we do not win a cup with Pronger in Philly, it was still the right move. Unless one is willing to argue that we could have used those assets (Sbiza, Lupol, first rounders) to win a cup! Another trade? Those players would have made us better? I don't think so, we are a better team with Pronger and now that he is at a hit of 4.9 million, he is the best bargain player in hockey. Just think, you could have Lupol at 4.2 or Pronger at 4.9.....hmmm, let me think....

phillyfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote