View Single Post
Old
06-25-2013, 10:26 AM
  #124
Afinogretzky
Registered User
 
Afinogretzky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
I wonder, if they don't do anything to augment the roster in support of the youth movement... does it disprove Joshjull's theory that no team "intentionally loses"?

If they traded Miller and/or Vanek simply for futures... like they did with Pommer.... isn't that viewed as intentionally losing the 13-14 season? (when things are framed that way... i don't like the context of the argument to begin with... just curious how others would view it as presented)
Yes. I think that's the objective. Give kids a ton of playing time, but the roster will be set up for failure. It's not like you're poisoning the water bottles, but you're not giving them a chance from the get-go.

What GM in the history of the world has ever used the word "suffering" to describe the current plan? It's going to happen.

Weirdly, I'm okay/excited for it. I genuinely believe it's the right move long term.

Afinogretzky is offline   Reply With Quote