It's Time to Tank: Who Gets Moved
View Single Post
02-19-2013, 01:24 AM
Join Date: Nov 2006
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.
You said yourself in the GDT that Tallon made some good signings and trades. So ok, he made a couple bad signings with Jovo and Kuba. So now he is terrible and "is doing nothing to move this team forward?" Ok, he's not a perfect human being, that's been established. You need to see the gray area. Not everything is spectacular or terrible. If Tallon had more money to work with, he could have made the mistakes he's made and also covered over them with a big forward signing in free agency, like other teams' GMs do.
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?
A)Build a quality team through the draft that starts to make the playoffs consistently
B)With more playoff appearances and a winning team, more money will come in
C)When ownership feels the time is right, go out and trade for/sign a star forward in free agency
View Public Profile
Dread Clawz's albums
Find More Posts by Dread Clawz