View Single Post
12-04-2005, 06:30 PM
Dr Love
Registered User
Dr Love's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by The Man
Irrelivant to the topic of whether the deal was good or not.
But relevant as to whether or not simply aquiring Adam Oates was a good move or not.

Lol, once again, irrelivant.
Care to explain how, since you didn't below? And Ouellet's value wasn't any higher after the trade.

And back then, Ouellet's value WAS at his highest... they didn't shop him around, or get what his value WAS, back in return in that deal.
You don't know that.

I'm not from Philly, I don't live there, don't really care about the Flyers (aside from the fact that I've got Gagne and Forsberg in a pool), and do consider myself quite unbiased in this topic. Back then when he was traded, Ouellet was as close as you could get to being considered a sure fire future #1 goalie.
Well, good for you. But to say he was "as close as you could get to being considered a sure fire future #1" just isn't true. Especially when guys like Rick Dipeitro and Mika Noronen were playing in the AHL with him.

Also I like how in your first post at HF you say "once more you're looking back on the trade now" as if you've been here for a while. Makes me wonder.

Lol. How do you figure? To RENT Adam Oates for the rest of the season and the playoffs, they gave a first, 2nd, 3rd rounder AND Ouellet up.
The league leader in assists (and IIRC something like 5th in the league in points at the time), a guy not have a fluke season by any means isn't value? Okay then. Did they give up too much by giving up Ouellet and those picks? Certainly, but everyone knows that, and they had one hand tied behind their backs with Primeau and Roenick on the shelf and no timetable for when they would return. But to say that Adam Oates, having a very good season, wasn't value is just absurd.

Hell, at the time Oullet ALONE was worth more than RENTING Oates.
That's your opinion.

Actually, they are two entirely separate things. And I can demonstrate to you very simply.

What would you say if Washington trade Ovechkin at the end of the year to whoever has the first overall pick next year. You'd say it's a horrible deal. Or if you wouldn't, well, that says a lot right there. But what about if 2 years from now, Ovechkin's doing great, he's getting 100 points per season, every year. But that first overall pick ended up being the best player ever, bar none. His 1st year, he gets 195 points.

Are you going to look back and say hey! The Caps made a great trade!!!! Because they still didn't.

When you look at the trade that's made, you look at it as things were back THEN. Ovechkin gets you first overall pick. Good deal? Hell no. Ovechin can get you a lot more.
You're missing the point. My post had nothing to do with whether or not they made the best deal or whether or not they got all they could get. It was that they did get value back in Adam Oates. I also gave the reasons why they made the trade because context is needed for that trade if you didn't understand the situation the Flyers were in, which you apparently didn't. I didn't defend it. In fact, I said it was a bad deal at the time, and I'll say it now: it wasn't the best deal Clarke could have gotten. But that's not what I'm discussing.

Just like back then, they were either drunk or something during negotiations, because Washington got one hell of a deal.
Which no one argued at the time, or since then. Nor I am I arguing that. The Caps got a lot of value back. It didn't pan out, but they got a lot of value back. And the Flyers got value too. That's my only point, I'm sorry you can't see that.

Last edited by Dr Love: 12-04-2005 at 06:51 PM.
Dr Love is offline