Thread: Proposal: #BringBackBob
View Single Post
03-12-2013, 10:45 PM
Registered User
WeekendAtBernies's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Absolutely. The whole goalie situation was not handled well. I don't know that if I were in charge I wouldn't have signed Bryz. His contract is the real issue. I don't think it was the wrong move to go after Bryz, I think it was the wrong move to give him such a lengthy deal. It did signal the end for Bob, but it was something that had to be done.
No, getting Bryzgalov didn't have to be done. It's the total wrong move to sign a 30+ year old goalie just as you're trading two of your top veterans for youth. If you're going with the youth movement, you want a goalie who will be entering his prime the same time as the other guys on the team. That goalie was Bobrovsky, not Bryzgalov. Acquiring Bryzgalov was a dumb overreaction to what had happened the past 2 years. Bryzgalov would've been the perfect goalie for 09-10 or 10-11, but we're not living in the past and that's the problem; our GMs always seem to be chasing past. Bryzgalov was the wrong choice for this team, given the other moves we were making. Getting rid of Bob only compounded that mistake, and not acquiring a legit backup only further compounded that mistake.

And now we're right back in goaltending hell.

Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Wow, now he should have been aware of what was going on in the new CBA that wasn't even being discussed (or was in its infancy) when Bob was traded? That is a stretch. Your other arguments make sense and I think are fair positions (though I don't agree with them). This is just nonsense.
Notice I didn't say he should have been 100% sure, but should it have been on his mind? Absolutely.

Come on man, you really don't think the GMs had some idea of what the owners & players wanted in the upcoming CBA? It's not like the CBA was YEARS out when Bob was traded, it was mere months away from expiring and talks had been held and ideas about what each side wanted were fairly well developed. Anyone with even a modicum of business knowledge could see that amnesty buyouts were a likely proposition. They'd been included in the last CBA, and in the last NBA CBA with great success and it was well known the owners were asking for a sharp reduction in the salary cap. The only way you can roll back the salary cap sharply and still allow teams who made moves based on the old cap to remain cap compliant is to allow some buyouts. There were several articles from people with no inside knowledge whatsoever speculating about NHL amnesty prior to / right around the Bob trade. Here's just a few examples:

It was clearly something that was going to be on the table.

Now maybe you and I have a different idea of "smart business", but I actually think our thoughts align a good deal if you're willing to be honest. I've seen you argue in another thread that 4th round draft picks are hardly that valuable (I believe it was a thread about Gagne, perhaps?) and quite frankly I agree. So while you're technically correct that trading Bob for a 2nd + 2 4ths gives us more value than just taking a 2nd for Bob as an RFA, I think we both know those 2 4ths really mean very little in the grand scheme of things. Unless you want to totally contradict what you've said in the past about mid-late draft picks, I think we can agree on that, can't we?

If we can agree on that, then I'd hope we can also perhaps agree that after watching Bryz play a disastrous 1st year in Philadelphia, despite being signed to that ridiculous contract, that maybe, just maybe, it would be worth sacrificing those 2 4th round picks to see what happens with the CBA, knowing that the salary cap was likely going down (which makes Bryz's contract even more unbearable) and knowing that the amnesty clause was an option.


To put it another way, since I think our argument is mostly over assumptions about what Homer knew / didn't know let's try a "hypothetical".

HYPOTHETICALLY, if you put yourself in Homer's shoes and you ASSUME in this hypothetical example that there's a 50% chance of an amnesty clause being included in the new CBA and a 100% chance that the cap goes down (how much it is going down is unknown at the time), and you know that you can get a 2nd round pick for Bob after the 12-13 season, would you still trade Bob for a 2nd and two 4ths in the 2012 offseason, or would you hold onto him?

I think in this hypothetical, it's clear you hold onto him.

WeekendAtBernies is offline