View Single Post
01-13-2013, 01:37 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 56,000
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Pick87your71Poison View Post
I don't understand how Shero doesn't get credit for that deal because it wasn't enough of a "risk". Are we trying to make good deals or just take risks because I'd damn well just make great trades. By that logic if Shero makes 5 more deals like the Neal deal and we're absolutely loaded, he doesn't get credit for not pushing his hand and taking a big risk. Maybe he should trade Malkin for a boatload of blue chip prospects and #1's. Very risky and could win us multiple cups in 5 years so at least he gets credit for trying.
So, trade Morrow for Bobby Ryan and then make two more deals like that. No risk, no problem . . . oh yeah, we can't do that yet. So, let's wait three years until we can, assuming all of these Pens prospects pan out. Of course, that means doing less in terms of Sid's and Geno's chances to win a cup in the next three years, but, you know, better safe than sorry when it comes to these prospects, right?

Seriously, I'm not 'not crediting' Shero for the Gologoski trade. It was a great trade. Ideally, a GM could make 2-3 of them a year. But, realistically, a GM, if he's lucky, might be able to make 2-3 of them a decade.

Usually, you have to make a decision: Do you take a risk, like the Hossa deal because you THINK you're ready to make a cup run or like trading one of your top three defensemen for a decent winger for Sid and a little cap flexibility because you THINK Letang is ready to make more of an impact.

Am I supposed to credit Shero, who built a cup winner taking some risks like that, for three years of risk aversion and early playoff exits thereafter?

Sorry, I can't do that.

KIRK is offline