Big Trade or Tanking ?
View Single Post
10-26-2011, 11:45 AM
Join Date: Sep 2004
two best parts of the article:
"Échanger quelques vétérans à compter de janvier pour profiter de quelques choix supplémentaires au repêchage si jamais l'équipe demeure parmi les pires clubs? Ça se défendrait."
"trading a couple of veteran players, starting in January, to profit from a few extra draft picks IF the team is still among the worst in league... that would be understandable (could be defended)".
bang on, and exactly what most of the so-called "tanking" advocates are actually arguing for.
"On retient surtout le fait qu'on a cédé de jeunes joueurs prometteurs comme Mike Ribeiro, Mikhail Grabovski, Sergei Kostitsyn, Guillaume Latendresse et Matt D'Agostini sans rien obtenir de valable en retour. Il y a aussi ce Ryan McDonagh qui est en train de s'imposer comme l'un des meilleurs défenseurs des Rangers de New York."
"we remember for sure the FACT that the team gave up several young, promising players (like Ribs, Grabs, Lats, SKost and D'ago) without getting anything of value in return. Also that Mcdo is in the process of establishing himself as one of the best dmen on the Rangers"
"On ne peut perdre autant de talent sans en subir les conséquences. À l'heure actuelle, il est permis de se demander quelle recette miraculeuse pourrait relancer cette équipe sans vie."
"we cant' lose so much talent without suffering consequences. At this point/right now, it's fair to ask ourselves what miracle fix could help put this team back on the right track (back to life)"
basically repeating what us so-called "bashers" have been saying about the current management group...
too many terrible asset management decisions over the past few seasons, mostly at the expense of young talent, which was then forcibly replaced by expensive UFA's (at the cost of even more young talent/picks).
How anyone can look at that track record and try to argue the team has been well managed of late is an amazing display of homerism if I ever saw one.
a team that has consistently had the flexibility to spend among the top teams in the league, shouldn't be considered a "success" for consistently managing mediocre results... yes floating around the playoff line, 6-10th in the conference, is mediocre ("of only moderate quality, not very good). 1 hot playoff run (coinciding with two players having H-O-F'er quality 1st/2nd rounds), and one great regular season (coinciding with a freakishly "lucky" avoidance of injury... which we've been seemingly paying for ever since as far as "luck" goes) don't erase or make up for consistently being a bubble playoff team every other year for a decade under one management group/philosophy.
Brunet is modest in his approach, and shows great restraint, but his comments, and the underlying point they address, seems pretty clear. Not good enough... time to start seriously facing that fact and looking for a reasonable solution.
"tanking" in a scorched earth sort of way is obviously not the solution, but neither is "staying the course"... a "course" which has led us to a roster where 5 of our top 6 paid players are clearly overpaid (or clearly underproducing given expectations/salary)
Gomez, Cammy, Gionta, Spacek, Cole... all below expectations.
only Pleks is delivering. (leaving markov out of that discussion even if real concerns exists for when/at what level he will return to the team at).
as much as it may be the players responsibility to step it up, when the balance sheet is that poor, the blame surely must lie on those who decided to put their faith in them in the first place.
View Public Profile
Miller Time's albums
Find More Posts by Miller Time