Thread: Worse Trade?
View Single Post
Old
03-24-2012, 08:12 PM
  #101
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danadiens View Post
It's funny, because in one of those threads, Whitesnake himself pegged him as a 2nd pairing D.

Anyways, I still think the trade was bad, just putting things in perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I uh, saw that. Obiviously he doesn't know what he's talking about and I'm never saying anything positive about him again.
I said in numerous posts that he could indeed become a good #3-#4 than #1-#2. Now, you can actually have more than 2 very good d-men in a team. If you are in Nashville, McDonagh is #3 behind Suter and Weber. In Montreal, it's entirely possible he's #3 behind Markov and Subban. Yet, that's entirely not the point. He was #2 in prospect pool on D. I did have my reservations, maybe I shouldn't have, after watching a whole lot of games as a sophomore. Who here did? Not a whole lot. And I can assure you that he was dissapointing during that season. Which made me revised my position. I guess I shouldn't have 'cause he had a much better Junior season. I also admitted after that I got screwed by Wisconsin's system who was actually not permitting him to shine as much.

When the Gomez trade happened, like everybody else, I was pissed off. Yet, I found a way later on to be positive, 'cause I keep being told how negative I was, and said that it was too soon to say that the Gomez trade was the worst. That we had to wait for McDo to shine before we'd claim that it was. I specifically said "we need to wait if Gomez won't underachieve and if McDonagh will shine". That happened. One of the worst trade ever. Added to the cap catastrophy that we already knew about.

I do have to be honest. I am extremely surprised by McDonagh's ability to shine as soon as he has. And to be as strong as he was at both ends of the rink. And mostly having to be playing an already important role on a very good team. He did surpass my expectations. Yet, even if he would not have, it would have been a bad trade. So I don't really understand the perspective you are trying to prove here. #1 or #3 for the future, #2 in our prospect pool at D, for an underachiever that the Rangers wanted to get rid of, at that amount of money.....it made no sense then. Makes no sense now. Will make even less sense in the future.


Last edited by Whitesnake: 03-24-2012 at 08:28 PM.
Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote