Thread: Proposal: Canes-NYR-Avs
View Single Post
07-29-2013, 01:48 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Da Big Apple
Country: United States
Posts: 11,947
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CM Lundqvist View Post
Accidental, didn't realize I quoted it.
No big whoop, just addressing because it was there.

No, YOU CAN'T because then our franchise player and best goaltender in the history of this club and the current best goaltender in the world would want to walk out on this team and there's not a living soul who can blame him as he wants to win a damn cup before he retires and won't with your mindset.
That's an assumption that the best G in the world views his inner circle as more important than winning. And we have to develop the rest of the club anyway, regardless of how good our G is.

Our fans have to realize yes, we have a good team, but it is NOT enough.
We do not have the proverbial horses to win.
We need to improve both the quantity and quality of our good players.

This will only happen when:
enough great drafting has a cumulative effect (see Hawks)
great trades improve the roster
we luck out on certain x factors

We can't luck out by force of will, by definition.
Great trades --- ok, we can make an improve here, there, that's all good. But those improves are marginal. You can't hope for continued swindles aka Gomez for McD.

That leaves drafting. But that takes time. Only way to defeat that is to pay a premium with a vet for MULTIPLES of prospects, with reasonable hope, no guarantee you wind up with MULTIPLES of better players. Development of these players takes time, but you get a guy who has already had a couple of years development, it helps accelerate the process a bit.

Also, you are shedding cap.
That gives you FA options/leverage for trades.

Like who? Who needs to go aside from the obvious Beaver, who is a cap casualty?
As I believe I said, NOBODY needs to go IMMEDIATELY.
ALL our older vets need to go at some point soon.

You can tell who fits the bill - Hank/Nash - not moving, that leaves'

This makes no sense. We deal Moore, MDZ, or Staal because the fit is too tight??? That's just awful asset management.
I'm not talking rocket science here.
We have an extra, we either use him on the right side or keep as insurance (which is expensive and causes cap problems) or we move for an asset needed elsewhere. Staal should be the one because he is oldest vet w/higher salary AND has most to offer in return atm.

Why are you talking about Skjei like he's even in the cards in the next 2-3 years? He's not. You're basing these hypothetical scenarios on a guy like Skjei stepping in and eating up minutes? Have you gone mad? The kid hasn't even played a professional game yet. You're just completely out of reason right now.
Calm down. Read what I said carefully. All I implied was that we are fortunate to have Skjei in the mix for down the road. I don't remember I said that was 2 years, 4 years or any other specific time. Having an asset like that already in the system makes it easier to have an ongoing plan. Staal would be like a now move. MDZ could be a next year move, depending upon what we get back. Even if there is a stop gap, if a Skjei could be available shortly after MDZ is moved [and we are assuming he is only moved, by definition, for assets that improve us and make the move worth while], that helps than if we did not have an asset like Skjei.

Torts should have went before Gaborik was traded. We had 2 40-goal threats and a team that could roll two different lines that could kill you on any night and the coach STILL couldn't manage the slightest bit of offense with it. A credit to his awful and outdated system. We were a couple of good bottom 6 players and a 6th/7th defender away from a cup.

Now, we're right back where we started.
I retain an open mind on theoretical trading Gaby and what we could get for him as to whether or not we should have kept him based on any specific return.

Torts should have gone WAY before.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote