View Single Post
Old
07-09-2011, 08:45 AM
  #937
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 5,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
that line of thinking makes sense... except if accurate (in the sense of the bolts accurately targeting well-coached/prepared players to fill out their roster), it would point to a serious problem with our managements decision to let them go.

considering that:
- Bolts were better than us last year
- Bolts have a smaller budget so must be more selective and get good value for their roster additions
- PG came out and said publicly that our roster was relatively "new" and hadn't played together as much as other groups, implying that improvements could be expected as a result of the group having one more season playing together under their belt (eerily similar to Gainey's lines about the team "improving" at the deadline by virtue of promotions to Halak/Grabovski after the '08 deadline were he failed to close the deal on any trades to help the conference leading team).


see what I'm saying here?

if the bolts are selectively targeting cheap depth players that they are high on by virtue of their respect for how well prepared they are coming from our system/coaching, then wouldn't it be foolish of us to be letting those players go in the first place? (especially since it means replacing them with "new" players to the already "inexperienced with each other" NHL group?
Tampa Bay did better than us this season because Stamkos, St-Louis, Lecavalier and Hedman are a better core than Subban, Price, and Plekanec.

Our bottom-6 was probably better than theirs, and that's why they like our bottom-6 players.

DAChampion is offline