Quote:
Originally Posted by haveandare
They were winning more often than they have been without him and he was playing great hockey.
We could have kept a lot of the other guys we lost outside of the Nash trade but we didn't - Feds and Prust for example. I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn't have been worth paying them more than I'm regretting the Nash trade.
|
Winning =/= good hockey. The old saying that "a win is a win!" just doesn't cut it. The way we were playing even before this losing streak would not have been conducive to success in the playoffs.