View Single Post
08-30-2011, 10:42 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
The problem is that, like all trades, plenty can go awry. The deals you've suggested look good now because you have the benefit of knowing how the individual players turned out. If you had proposed Koivu for Ryan in 2006, it would probably look about as good as Markov for Pouliot in the same year. But we all know that would be a disaster of a trade.

No offense but your general strategy for team building seems to be unrealistic. You cite the Rivet trade as the kind of trade we should be making, but not every trade is going to turn out so well in our favor. Trading's a can be a double edged sword and to pick out the good ones and to say "do more of that" is a lot easier said than done.

You also complain that we shouldn't be signing vets, but we went farther than we'd been since 93 with a line-up comprised almost entirely of vets. There's really no legitimate basis for this complaint as the team stands now. We may have "regressed" by getting eliminated in the first round, but this team took the champs to seven games without three key players.

And what should PG have done after nearly knocking off the eventual champs? Should he have NOT signed Cole and let the team get immediately weaker? Should he have traded assets for some prospect who may or may not ever play in the NHL because he's got good size, so that he may or may not make this team better in the future? No, he took the most obvious course of action; he addressed a need. He picked up a big winger who can hit and score and is coming off one of the best seasons of his career. The last year of his contract may be a bit much but there really isn't anything to legitimately complain about with regards to this signing.

Really, what it sounds like you want to do is blow the team up and tank. But that won't happen, and it's not management's fault. Not one single team in the Habs current position is going to run their team that way. Not one. They're following a precedent. The Bruins pretty much proved you don't need a bunch of lottery picks to win. It takes a mix of good drafting, good development, good trades, and good FA signings.
Look, I'm really going to go out on a limb here and defend LG.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that top 5 picks over a few years increase your chances of becoming a contending team? Yes or no. Answer the question. If you answer no, skip the rest of this post.

2. Do you contend that aging but currently valuable UFA players are as effective as very good young prospects in building a contending team? Answer the question. Yes or no? If you answer yes, skip the rest of this post.

3. Do you disagree with tanking to get top 5 picks? Answer the question, yes or no? If you answer yes, you are rare here, and almost no one will agree with you. If you answer no, go to question 4:

4. You now believe that top 5 picks are better than UFA's at building a contender, and further, you do not want to tank: So now answer this question with reasoned answers:

Please suggest to us, how without tanking do we bloody well get top 5 picks? You have not. None of you have except LG. LG has, and I think he is correct:

Trade valuable vets when you cannot contend, to contenders who will give you high picks for them. Correct. Door closed. End of. It hurts, yes. It also works.

Give us alternatives if you disagree. I want to hear them. And do not include building slowly with UFA's and constantly drafting bottom 15 1st round picks, because I think we have enough evidence since 1993 that that strategy is not working.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote