View Single Post
11-22-2010, 08:57 PM
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Pantokrator View Post
Well, now that everyone has dismissed my comparion of the trades, my main point was to suggest that in the Sharp deal, we traded pseuduo-actualized potential (he actually played in the NHL) for unrealized potential that ended up being zero. In a possibly similar fashion, we traded potential (although, unrealized) for a player who has seen his max ability in the NHL. So, in trying to defend my comparison, I actually affirmed that the deals are nothing alike.....

That being said, The Flyers gave up potential in this deal for a player who will be AT BEST a 6-7 defensman in the NHL. I'd rather just keep the potential. What good is Syvret except as emergency fill in if a starting 6 player gets hurt, Bartulis gets hurt, and any other AHL defenseman gets hurt.
I just don't think the comparison is the same. No one really questioned whether Sharp was going to be a good player. Playing RW with Carter, they won the Calder. He looked good in his NHL call ups. But he hated Hitchcock and wanted out. We had a good team so they dealt him as a favour to him. I don't question dealing him, just not getting anything for him.

Maroon has potential, but unlike Sharp, there is no real sense that he is GOING to realize it. I have always supported Maroon, based on watching him in Jr. He had to learn to skate like an NHL player to be one, he hasn't bothered.

I don't wish him ill, but dealing a guy who is likely to be a 'never was' is not the same as dealing a good young player who was acting like a jerk in a veteran dressing room. I'm sure the vets told Clarkie to get rid of the yappy puppy. In Maroon's case, he had to go because he was poisoning the real potential Flyers on the Phantoms.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote