View Single Post
Old
11-19-2010, 09:32 PM
  #52
dulzhok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenngineer View Post
Dulz, first off, if you knew why we held on to Hamhuis, which was stated by Poile and Trotz, it was because they felt he gave us a better chance at winning in the playoffs. If we had advanced, they would've re-signed him with the money generated from the playoff series. We didn't so he was let go. We could've gotten value for him sure but would we have made the playoffs, debatable.

The comparison I was talking about with Suter and Weber to the Anaheim pair is look what's happened to the blue line in Anaheim in a matter of two years. Do we want the same thing to happen here, by giving up our first pair defensemen? Is that a smart move? How would Chicago look if they lost Keith and Seabrook? How would Detroit look if they lost Lidstrom and Rafalski? Any team that loses their top two defensemen are going to be hurting. That's they point I was making.
I don't see anyone suggesting that we should get rid of Suter and Weber. Two options being suggested 1) If Poile doesn't feel like he can sign Weber long term, it'd be in the best interest to trade him for a huge return. 2) Even if we can sign Weber & Suter to long-term big deals, is that where this team needs to invest it's limited budget?


Last edited by dulzhok: 11-19-2010 at 09:48 PM.
dulzhok is offline   Reply With Quote