View Single Post
02-22-2011, 01:37 AM
kingsfan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,269
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by sjmay View Post
LOL so then you must rate Dave Taylor above Ken Holland, as if your only candidate for risk is to trade 1st rounders, and proven players for unproven god...really?

THAT is what you call risky?

Then why isn't the Smyth trade considered a "risk", or the "Sturm" trade a risk??
There is a difference between a risk taker and a successful risk taker.

I think Mike Keenan is one of the biggest risk takers out there, but i wouldn't call him an overly successful GM. Taylor was far more risky than DL was, just look at the Palffy trade, but that doesn't mean he was successful in his risk taking. Hollan on the other hand makes his risks pan out most times. He looked like a genius on the Schneider, Shanahan and Chelios trades, and most deadlines is involved in dealing prospects away for help in the playoffs. Name the last trade that DL did for a big name player in the NHL.

The biggest risks DL takes is at the draft (Hickey), not in trades. Arguably the biggest risk he took on the trade front is the Johnson/Gleason deal, and really, if that didn't pan out was losing Gleason for nothing the end of the world? It would have sucked, but we could recover. I'm a big DL supporter, but he's not a risk taker at all, and makes Holland look like Tom Dwan in terms of risk taking, to use a poker reference.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote