View Single Post
01-14-2013, 12:54 AM
Lafleurs Guy
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 37,721
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
You're not fooling anyone. Your post is a deliberate manipulation of language and your boldfaced challenge is an outrage. You equate not trading prospects for veterans with tanking? Even prime contenders sometimes do it when they think it would enhance their chances of winning. Tanking would be doing the exact opposite: trading some of your best veterans for prospects and especially draft picks when you don't have to.

When does a team ever HAVE to do it? They do it because it makes sense. Did trading Joe Niewendyke for Jarome Iginla HAVE to be done? No. Did it make the Flames immediately weaker? Yes. But they did it because it made sense to do it.

No reason for us not to do this as well. Not because we HAVE to but because it makes sense.

Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Trading Plekanec for draft picks even before the season begins would be tanking.
It's not tanking, it's rebuilding. It would be a great move on our part. If we could get a 1st++ absolutely we should do it.
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Finishing 28th last season was not Gauthier's strategy at the outset even though it happened to bring in Galchenyuk as a side effect.
That's right. We did things backwards. Instead of realizing that we had no chance at winning we continued to make dumb moves like getting Bourque and Kaberle in the misguided attempt to get to 8th place.

If we'd have been smart we would've done the opposite and gone after picks and prospects to accelerate the process.

Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
If that was tanking, then Gauthier should be commended. I any team might be condemned for tank, it would be the Oilers, who should have finished higher with that roster.
Last season Washington had another team's pick and I proposed that we should offer up Pleks to get it. Maybe Washington wouldn't have done it but that's besides the point... the point is that the apologists here thought it was crazy.

Well, that pick turned out to be a 13th overall and we could've drafted Grigorenko or some other prospect.

We finished close to dead last anyway and we're not going anywhere this year either. That pick could've been something to be excited about now. But for some reason you see improving our team for the future as being 'morally wrong'... and I don't get this reasoning. There's nothing dishonourable about recognizing your shortcomings and doing something about it. It's smart. We haven't done this and it's why we've been mediocre for 20 years.

What blows my mind is that people continue to defend this as being acceptable (or more shockingly 'honourable'.) There's nothing honourable about perpetually being a bubble team and not improving. Esp when you have the resources that we do and a rich history to boot.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote