Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga
If the pick/prospect you got wont be better than the player you deal him for, whats the point of such a deal ?
|
The point is that even if the player isn't as good as Markov was in his prime, he's going to be better in two or three years than Markov will be as Markov gets older. You get a player at the start of his career rather than at the end.
That's the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga
Sure, you got Galchenyuk, but if the supporting cast is worse than it was when you dealt those veterans, the team is not going to be improved.
|
In the short term you're probably right. You'll probably sink in the standings. (Doesn't matter though because we won't win anything now anyway.)
But you'll be better off in the long run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga
Thats the problem right there.
You, and only you, think that Ryan would have been traded for Koivu.
I am pretty sure that this was next to impossible.
|
The Ducks were in the hunt for the cup. Their best forward (Selanne) was good friends with Koivu and he had a cheap contract. Plus we had Sheldon Souray who was on fire and at the end of his contract. So we could've packaged them together but instead we went for 8th...
Burke said he wouldn't do a rental for Ryan but if you do Koivu and Souray? We probably could've gotten Ryan +++. Instead we kept Souray, chased 8th, lost him for nothing and missed the playoffs anyway. Then three years later Koivu left for nothing and went to... the Ducks. Meanwhile Ryan is now a 30 goal scorer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutabaga
And you have to consider the luck in Pacioretty's case.
Do you remember that the previous year, we had 3 picks in the Top-60 and that no one did meet the expectations ? Timmins is great, but even with him, its far from being a safe thing.
|
Trading for a 1st is not luck. It's smart. And we have the best scouting in the league.
It's shocking that we don't do this more often...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab
You are living the myth.
The Habs did not tank last year. They sucked at hockey because they had an idiot coach who was finally and thankfully fired.
They sucked at hockey because they had a GM who was incapable of building a hockey team to play in the "modern" NHL.
The legacy of inept management (think Boivin) has people like you actually believing in the myth of tanking.
|
He's not saying that we should deliberately lose. You are making straw man arguments and get no points for this. None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab
Instead, wake up to reality and understand that the Montreal Canadiens have been a franchise (led by the marketing whiz Pierre Boivin) that placed its priorities on selling the brand and marketing instead of what the Montreal Canadiens were at one time.......a hockey franchise that excelled.
Boivin is gone. So are the lackeys who were a disgrace to this organization. Finally, after so many years, Geoff Molson has come to the realization that the reason the Canadiens made so much money was for the hockey that they played, not the marketing of the name.
So dream on about the myth of tanking. For that is all that it is. It is your inability to come to the realization that this team has been woefully left behind by franchises with brilliant hockey minds running their organizations. And it is your inability to admit the failure that Gainey and Gauthier were as GMs.
You are still an embarrassment.
|
Making straw man arguments and then saying that the other guy is an embarrassment?
Right back at you man. Come up with some REAL arguments and then maybe we'll listen to you. All you're coming up with is silliness about losing on purpose which nobody is suggesting.