View Single Post
03-28-2012, 12:24 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,570
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
The first thing that popped into my head was honestly how much of this "three strike" thought process, even if it wasn't so organized or contrived as to declare a "strike" scenario, went into the departure of Eriksson from the organization.

Back to Ranford, I'm not so sure that the organization letting him walk is a great idea. I'm a firm believer in using your assets until you're sure there is nothing there. It's why I have been so outspoken about Eriksson, and while I think Eriksson may have been a bigger blunder than the possible departure of Ranford, I can't really approve of either move.

Ranford did have the three strikes under him already: size, skating, and defensive play. However, he plays bigger than his actual size, and in the meanwhile, his skating and defensive game has improved.

The more that I think about though, despite how much I dislike it, I think you may be right. I have a different theory as to why though. I don't think the drama in Kamloops was Ranford's fault, even though the Flyers' organization might not care. I also don't think it's simply "he didn't produce/grow enough during juniors."

I really think you're starting to see the organization target guys specifically for Laviolette's system. Those are the guys getting contracts and getting pushed through.

With Ranford's skating, as much as he bettered himself, he was still going to lag behind this system at the NHL level in a noticeable way.

Maybe it isn't that simple, but I still want to see him signed. Losing assets for nothing is poor asset management.
yeah, but if we take that contract and nab another matt read I'll be very happy..

Homer has been pretty phenomenal at picking guys out of no where...neither of these are huge losses, BUT they could be huge pickups!

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote