View Single Post
Old
07-07-2010, 01:20 PM
  #117
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
1) You don't know that, because you don't know what other moves would have been made.

2) We didn't have a parade, the trade is not a success... yet.



The Leclair and Desjardins trade isn't even remotely comparable. John Leclair was 25 when he came to Philly, and Desjardins was 25 as well. That trade was about changing the team up because the team was a *ing mess before they got there... it was not about "putting us over the top."



Some trades are made with the primary goal of winning the Stanley Cup. Chris Pronger was traded for with the primary goal of winning the Stanley Cup. If we do not win the Stanley Cup, then that trade failed to accomplish its goal. It wasn't about "improving" our team. It wasn't about "winning". It wasn't about having a nice little playoff run.

It was about winning the Stanley Cup.

If you cannot see the difference between trading for Chris Pronger and trading for Ville Leino, then I don't know what to tell you. Holmgre sold the **** out to acquire Chris Pronger. It's that simple. He then signed him to an over-35 contract (a necessity given how much we gave up for him) that could cripple us in the future.
Obviously what you're saying is very simple but you're also making it sound like Pronger was a deadline acquisition, something like the Dallas-Calgary trade with Iginla going the other way. We got him for the long haul now (will likely retire in Philly) and while it looked like a big haul on paper the "jury's still out" part of the deal is more the Anaheim side at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
If Holmgren traded that much for 1-year of Pronger he'd be an even bigger moron than I think he is as of now... and I think he's pretty damn stupid. That extension was a NECESSITY to make that deal even remotely make sense.
Yes but the TERMS are what make it questionable, if it were say a 3yr/18M extension (giving us Pronger for a grand total of four contract years) it would be occasion to celebrate without question. As is, we don't know how it will shake out to have him under contract until he is 41 or 42.

Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote