View Single Post
Old
09-17-2012, 03:49 PM
  #177
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,544
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Because they aren't criticisms. They're unsupported assertions. And they're being made without regard to other points that have been made in this thread that render many of them meaningless and confirm a few others as being legit issues.

And I'm about as (ir)rational as any other human being.
Okay I don't think your original post is entirely logical to be honest. But I would like to see what you say for example, over the fact that Howson could have been entirely aware of Carter's personality if he had taken the time to eat dinner with him or something and see if he actually wanted to play in Columbus. Likewise with Nash, it's not like he asked for a trade out of a vacuum, you see, what was Howson's thought process with regards to Nash?

this quote specifically is what I have a problem with

Quote:
This was a trade that seemed justified and well-dome at the time, but has backfired badly - both due to bad luck (Couturier, the unprecedented extent of Carter's madness) and due to issues that should have been foreseen (that Carter would be frustrated at all). It is a black mark.
"unprecedented extent of Carter's madness" - this is an issue that good GM's are paid to avoid. Seemed Justified and well-done at the time? Hardly, it was an overpayment before Carter's "madness" and it now it obviously speaks for itself

Also I don't think HF's opinion is entirely relevant to the topic. I think it is best to consider Howson's actions with or without the opinions of HF posters.

Another point I want to make is questioning whether you can call the Carter-JMFJ trade "well-executed". Yes he did a great job of filing the necessary paperwork I am sure. But most authorities agreed that trade was basically even at the time. Yes Carter had to go at that point but on the other hand Jack was looking like more of a liability for resigning Quick and Kopitar than he did an asset to help us win the Stanley cup. He may end up suprising for sure, but from the looks of it in LA he was basically a 30-40 point defenseman.


Last edited by LAX attack*: 09-17-2012 at 04:00 PM.
LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote