View Single Post
09-09-2013, 11:27 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,166
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by sansabri View Post
because Sather is pretty savvy when it comes to trades. you gotta give him that.

Holmgren is crazy, but he's built some very solid teams. almost had himself a ring.

i'd put Nonis in the 'bad' for the Luongo/Schneider fiasco. that thing lasted over 2 years.
Much in the same way, focusing on one element for Sather or Holmgren (trades versus signings in New York, or Holmgren "almost" getting a ring versus trading off his two best players for a mini rebuild, or the Bryz fiasco, or any other negative element) as positives versus the Schneider/Luongo fiasco...or the Hodgson trade (remains to be proven yet), or Booth, or Ballard, or what ever negative...

If Homer gets a pass based on "almost" getting a ring, why not Gillis? If not for injuries, we could have/would have/should have and the team still got to game 7. Boston beat us, the Blackhawks beat the Flyers, for every ying, there's a yang. I've said I'd want Gillis in the "good" pile on different arguments, but if Holmgren and Sather, with the randomness of their successes and failures, I'd argue Gillis is at least as "good" as those two.

Cogburn is online now   Reply With Quote