It's Time to Tank: Who Gets Moved
View Single Post
02-19-2013, 01:17 AM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Originally Posted by
The budget argument only goes so far. When you spend that much money twice on a mediocre defenseman--which is an exaggeration in Jovo's case--you show a lack of ability when dealing with defense. And to contradict one's own argument: defense must be considered! Yes, and what great results such consideration has achieved! It makes no sense to argue for the losing side from the get-go. Obviously different actions by the GM would have--and still can--have a better result.
By the way, if the budget argument is correct, is the reason behind our incomplete team, then doesn't that mean we'll always have an incomplete (or, really, incompetent) team? Of course, that is, unless the team some day has owners more willing to spend (a few extra million). Perhaps there won't be so many empty seats in the arena then. I'm not informed on how the finances of an NHL franchise work, so if you happen to be in the know, do share. Is a losing team more profitable than a winning team for which you pay a bit more?
You make a huge assumption that we can sign star players or top line forwards. Kuba and Jovo signings are bad, get over it. Tallon has built one of the best prospect pools in the league. We're going to get more quality assets at the deadline and we'll probably have another big draft. Rome wasn't built in a day.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by RainingRats