View Single Post
12-17-2012, 03:04 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,250
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan View Post
To wade into this and regret that I did most likely.

Honest question. Why does everyone just use unquestioned the argument that goes something like this:

'well yeah, Shero drafted a boatload of backend talent, and not just backend talent but almost all of a certain type. But you can trade a PMD and get value back. Look what Whitney and Goligoski brought! We can get a Nisky and Neal for everyone of these PMD's he has drafted.'

And everyone seems to buy this as true. I hate a lot of these truisms as a lot of them seem rational on the surface but do not stand up to even rudimentary scruitiny. Sort of like the one where the refs favor the Pens (who google can show you are year in year out one of the most penalized teams in the league). Or that we do not support the team (or bandwagon fans, etc) when our television ratings have been among the best for decades. But back to this one. Yeah PMD have great value. But there is a caveat people ignore. They have value ONCE THEY DEVELOPE. Whitney and Goligoski spent years as whipping boys and were just entering what was percieved to be their primes when they were traded. A lot of the chance had been removed from developing them, along with a lot of the pain. Watching Gogo come out of the zone and turn the puck over again and again and again especially his first couple years was painful to see. So I see a flaw in the Shero plan and those defending it. We are cup contenders for the next few years if not favorites. We do not have the luxury of developing guys who suck defensively until they grow into the pro game. We are not the same team we were when Whitney and Goligoski were developing. And we will not get much value back for prospects. So how does that plan work for us, as we are constructed now?
But MAF makes the saves when he has to! (as if there is ever a time he doesn't "have" to make a save). The logic hockey fans use sometimes.

If your goal is to get a solid forward talent, you certainly don't draft defensemen. Noting all of 2 past examples as "the rule" is also .

#1: Defensemen: They are generally a riskier pick, take longer to develop, and are highly dependent on forwards for their point production. (These statements have all been just about proven in numerous studies). Whitney and Gogo are still good, top 4 defensemen.

#2: Trade: Why draft and develop something of an unknown with the idea that you are eventually going to "flip" it for something of equal or greater value? Does this ever really work reliably on any item or good without huge risks? IE housing market, stocks, gold, etc? If you value something, produce it yourself. You eliminate many variables (that you can't control) out of the development process. Who knows if you can find a trade partner with valuable assets that wants yours?

Aside from Neal, Kunitz/Tangradi was not all that great of a return for Whitney (assuming RW can ever stay healthy). I wouldn't say we fleeced them by any stretch. I'd also like to see more than one miracle year out of Neal too before judging that trade.

wgknestrick is offline   Reply With Quote