: On the Radio:
Moulson to Bruins?
View Single Post
01-18-2011, 06:18 PM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Originally Posted by
Sidney the Kidney
Apologize in advance for straying from the original topic, however I really don't get this kind of comment. I know you stressed (based on your capitalization) the situation Chicago faced after they'd won the Cup, but at the same time, I don't understand how people make them out to be in such a horrible spot.
First off -- and yes, this goes against you saying "after" -- they won the Cup. That is the ultimate achievement that teams aim for. They collect draft picks, prospects, and free agents in the hopes that all that building will result in winning the Stanley Cup. Chicago did just that with their roster, regardless of what situation it put them in in the future. They achieved the ultimate goal. So regardless what happens this season, or next, or the year after, what they did was what 29 other teams wanted to do.
Second -- and this is more directly tied to your "after" scenario -- the Hawks are still a very good team this year. They had to shed some of their depth, but they kept every single piece of their core intact. They didn't lose Toews, Kane, Sharp, Keith, Hossa, Hjalmarsson or Seabrook. Not to mention, they're still in the playoff hunt. They sit 6th in their conference and, after a bit of a rough start, are actually starting to turn it on. Yet you make it sound like they're now dwelling near the basement, and that they've had to completely dismantle their core and hurt themselves tremendously because of their spending.
I mean, I just don't get it. Chicago has to unload some of their depth, but have retained the guys who they built their championship around. Yet somehow they're in a
What if that happens to us even BEFORE we hit a cup run?
I don't think I ever qualified what I said by saying its guarenteed we win a cup and that's what happens.
View Public Profile
Visit CDirt's homepage!
Find More Posts by CDirt