View Single Post
07-26-2012, 11:57 PM
Dream '16
Jame's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,983
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
You own a 2012 black SS Camaro, and you trade it in for a 1998 Aston Martin w/ 120,000 miles ... Hey change for change sake.

You own a perfect 1969 GTO Judge, you trade it in for a 2009 Audi R8 with w/ 80,000 miles ... Hey change for change sake.

Point is that there is good change and stupid change. ALL change under ALL circumstances is not always a good idea. Getting rid of Roy was fine, but we did go down in "potential" points from the forwards this coming season. In other words Ott probably won't put up 55-65 points like Roy usually did.
To then trade away Vanek for someone who usually puts up less points, puts the team further down in "potential" points. Does anyone else see that?

Change for change sake at any cost shouldn't always be done in all situations. I'm all for trading any player ... Yes, any player if it's going to make the Sabres win more games. But at some point you can't keep trading 50-60 point guys, for 40-50 point guys. Eventually, offensive production will suffer and make winning even harder. Even if you have a "tougher" team.
was that supposed to be a comparison to marleau?

if so the analogy is terrible

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote