: News Article:
Ken Holland (Red Wings GM) understands Gauthier's decision to trade Halak
View Single Post
08-26-2010, 11:19 AM
Habs of steel
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Originally Posted by
You are making the mistake of evaluating the actual deal. Put yourself in the position of Wings fan in 97. First Cup win since 1955. First thing the GM does is trade the MVP.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but,it's not the trade that is at issue, it is the response of the fans. Neither trade was popular at the time. How it played out afterward is essentially irrelevant to the point Holland is trying to make. It's not the substance of the trade. It's how the fans received it at the time
But they ended up winning the cup.....some fans believed, believes etc., that Halak was the center piece to get there. Some now believes in a setback. Yes, it's the response of the fans, though do some people know exactly how was the fans response to the trade? What was it? I don't think that how it played afterward was irrelevant 'cause in the end, if it would not have played that well, people would have been able to say that "We disagree with you at the time AND WE WERE RIGHT". Now Holland has a record to say to everyone that we should just never discuss his moves 'cause they almost all end up great ones and he has the record to prove it.
Another thing going for Holland....Vernon was 35 years old. He didn't know at the time, but there was 6 years left to Mike's career. So you could actually explain the move more by saying that one might have been towards the end of his career, while we had a younger one, who had already proved his worth that had way more years ahead of him.
Originally Posted by
It's all fine and fun to have opinions, even in the absence of most of the relevant information. That's not the issue.
The issue is when people hype their opinion to no end, argument it like their life depends of it, completely refuse to even consider the opposition's arguments, and freaks out because the position they supported fanatically for 6 months isn't the one retained by the organization.
So I guess you're suggesting that's what I'm doing. Sorry if I have an opinion AND if in the end I'm RESPONDING to the ones who are replying to me. I'm pretty sure that in most of my posts, I'm pretty calm and come with an argumentation that while you might not agree with isn't filled with "**** you all" or "he's a hamburger eater anyway" or "Whatever...".
I like to discuss and also keeps repeating that I respect everybody's opinion unless you are not respecting mine. But if there's a rule that states how many replies we should write, tell me and I'll adjust.
I really really really would like to see where I don't consider the opposition argument. And funnily enough, you are talking about a debate I deliberately chose to ignore while having 1 opinoin on it...."Didn't like the way Price was brought it, and find it's unfair to him for the rest of his career in Montreal 'cause of the pressure". I pretty much talked about it 5 times during this whole debate aside from that thread.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Whitesnake