View Single Post
08-24-2012, 07:06 PM
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
haseoke39's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
yes, i think it's possible to develop a contender via youth.. and not just hang on to players indefinitely

you clearly dont get it... since you think there is a correlation between letting briere/drury go... and potentially letting 2 guys who have led us nowhere go... good comparison

my plan for cup contention is all about developing : grigs, girgs, ennis, armia, foligno, myers, sekera, pysyk, mcnabb... and putting the best possible players around them over the next 2-3 years, so that by year 4 they are ready to lead the team... bringing in doan assists that goal imo

vanek doesn't even enter the picture in terms of a player on the team imo... he's a trade asset to get more pieces to assist the development of the aforementioned... that's his value to building a contender
So your plan is:

1. Turn over the keys to kids who've never played int he NHL
2. Trade your current best forwards (for what? Presumably for something much cheaper than them, since you describe letting them go as a salary problem fix. Presumably not top 6 players, I have to assume, or else you're just moving laterally.)
3. Let Shane Doan be the mentor that turns Grigorenko, Girgensons, Armia etc into a cup winning core at age 20.

Confirm or deny this, and try to talk substance and not tone.

If this is true, why not start moving Vanek and Pommer now, while their value is high? And what would you look for in return for them that would, in your mind, be the complementary pieces that would allow our prospects to form a cup-winning core?

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote