View Single Post
Old
09-16-2010, 05:33 PM
  #43
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Forgot there was one other point I wanted to contend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
As for "sticking to the plan", again if you go back in the team's history, really the only times the Kings abandoned a plan of building from within were when they made the acquisitions for true star players like Marcel Dionne, Wayne Gretzky, and Zigmund Palffy - and, not coincidentally, those begun the three most successful periods in the history of the team.
The only time? There never was a plan of building from within that was stuck to even loosely.

The problem was not acquiring those three. Those three helped the franchise a great deal. If Dean made one of those trades today, it wouldn't be a departure from his plan. It would be a piece in the plan. Sticking to a plan doesn't mean being myopic and never trading for proven talent. Its a general way of running the show. Dean is running that show well, in a way that it never was before.

The problem was the little moves that followed. That's the departure from the plan. Cliff Ronning, Anson Carter, Roenick, Heinze, etc. Picking up declining players at the cost of prospects, or in the case of JR, relying on a vet who was really just a name, eating up and wasting ice time.

Or losing Mair and a pick for Rasmussen.

Or losing Lilja for Yushkevich.

Or Straka.

Or losing a pick for Steve Passmore.

Or perhaps one of the worst trades ever, Parrish and Sopel for Tambellini and Grebeshkov.

The equivalents today would be trading Parse and Richardson for a Spacek or Mike Grier. Or trading Martin Jones and Oscar Moller for an Ales Kotalik or some other overpaid, declining player. Or tradng Voynov and Simmonds for Kovalev. Etc, etc.

The big trades weren't the problem. The little moves define the direction.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote