View Single Post
01-03-2011, 08:00 PM
Registered User
ARS's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,548
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kickabrat View Post
I think people are not quite following MoO position.

What I think he's trying to say is that if the amateur scouts had done a better job if drafting under Muckler, Murray would have had more pieces to use to acquire good players. The pro scouts can identify the players but what good is it if the other team wants a top notch player in return because you have no enticing prospects to offer? Therefore while the pro scout may be doing a great job in identifying players, the GM's hands are tied because he does not have enough good assets to acquire those assets. Also, if the amateur scouting would have been better under Muckler and supplied good players, maybe Murray does not need to sign a Kovalev or a Gonchar and can instead use that money for other players.

Which makes a lot of sense.
Oh I fully understand what he's arguing, that with better prospects you can acquire better players in trades or not have to sign a specific player to fill a specific position, however that still has nothing to do with the quality of your pro scouting. Good pro scouting would have told Murray that Commodore and Kovalev were bad fits on this team, and that Leclaire wasn't as good as his one season made him out to be, yet he made moves to acquire those players, which tells us that our pro scouting is not that great.

Like I said before, his position is that no pro scouting required = good pro scouting and that is a logical fallacy.

ARS is offline   Reply With Quote