HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Was the Pronger Trade Worth it?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-06-2010, 01:29 PM
  #51
dgaspari
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo0sE View Post
I think the trade was definitely worth it... dunno about the 7 year contract tho...
was this a good trade for the 09/10 season? in the short term it was. but time will tell if it was a good trade for the long term. you are looking at paying pronger for 7 more years @ a $5 m cap hit which can not be removed from the salary cap. remember that paul and the organization are " cap challenged" so you do not know what ramification prongers contract will have have on future seasons.

the major problem i have with this deal is paul overpaid. he was the only gm serious about pronger and should have paid a lot less than what he did. he bid against himself and drove up the price. if he had paid fair market value maybe we would have had a few extra prospects in the system.

finally, the other problem paul created was that he traded for pronger on the last year of his contract. once he gave the ducks that large payment, he had to sign pronger at any price. right after pronger was traded, he mentioned how to andy strickland, that it would be nice to finish his career in st louis. because paul had no position of strenght in the contract negotioation ( and not knowing how the capped worked).he gave chris a contact that was bad the flyers organization's cap future.

dgaspari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 01:47 PM
  #52
Larry44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaspari View Post
was this a good trade for the 09/10 season? in the short term it was. but time will tell if it was a good trade for the long term. you are looking at paying pronger for 7 more years @ a $5 m cap hit which can not be removed from the salary cap. remember that paul and the organization are " cap challenged" so you do not know what ramification prongers contract will have have on future seasons.

the major problem i have with this deal is paul overpaid. he was the only gm serious about pronger and should have paid a lot less than what he did. he bid against himself and drove up the price. if he had paid fair market value maybe we would have had a few extra prospects in the system.

finally, the other problem paul created was that he traded for pronger on the last year of his contract. once he gave the ducks that large payment, he had to sign pronger at any price. right after pronger was traded, he mentioned how to andy strickland, that it would be nice to finish his career in st louis. because paul had no position of strenght in the contract negotioation ( and not knowing how the capped worked).he gave chris a contact that was bad the flyers organization's cap future.
The out years of Pronger's contract are no problem. The last two are really cheap ($500K). They could trade him to a club struggling to meet the cap, then he can retire and they can use the $5M cap hit, and, of course, they wouldn't even have to pay him the cash either.

Larry44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 01:59 PM
  #53
phillyfanatic
Registered User
 
phillyfanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
For real? If I said you had a time machine and you could go back to that time, would you do it again? 100 times over I would. People make it seem like if we don't win the cup it was not a good trade. Pronger took us to the Stanley Cup Final his first year here. He made our defense the best in the league (IMO). He has forced Richards to be a better captain.

This guy is my favorite Flyer. In 7 years, he may be my favorite Flyer of all time. I have never seen Philly have a dominate D-man like him. Now if we could get dominate goaltending behind him and consistent scoring, we will win that cup. However, 1 team of 30 wins the cup. 29 other teams fail. I very much enjoyed our cup run this year, that means something to me. It was the most enjoyment I have had watching hockey in my life, if you think otherwise, oh well.

phillyfanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 02:19 PM
  #54
turkinaa
Registered User
 
turkinaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 915
vCash: 500
Giving up those 3 1st round picks was a lot, but when you try to win now you sometimes lose out of the later aspect because you gave up those picks. The trade really worked because (1) we came up 2 wins short of a cup and got there because Pronger played like a machine and was probably our MVP for the entire season and (2) because we almost won our 2010 pick was 29th overall as compared to a middle round pick if we didn't make the finals. The fact we didn't win was a combination of other factors, as said earlier, and not based on the Pronger trade. Sure, Pronger makes it a bit more difficult cap wise to fix those issues, but without him we probably wouldn't have been able to accomplish what we did. Since the impact currently is minimal by trading those picks and Lupul, and any issues we have are not related to the trade, the Pronger trade was pure win. Now if Dingle became an NHL player and he was resigned, it would be even better.

turkinaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 03:01 PM
  #55
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,717
vCash: 10000
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
We win a cup when he's here? Yes. We don't win one when he's here? No. Can't tell yet.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 03:22 PM
  #56
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
We win a cup when he's here? Yes. We don't win one when he's here? No. Can't tell yet.
Again, several of us would ask, does that mean every trade since 1975 was a drastic failure?

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 03:30 PM
  #57
JVR21
G
 
JVR21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 7,880
vCash: 500
I guess it was "worth it", but I think we all agree we sure as hell could have given up less. At the very least we could have given a 2nd instead of one of the 1sts.

Edit: Oops. Don't have any 2nds.

JVR21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 03:46 PM
  #58
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
Again, several of us would ask, does that mean every trade since 1975 was a drastic failure?
No, but that trade was explicitly about putting us over the hump to win a Cup. You do not trade for a mid 30s defenseman and sell out a slew of young talent (Sbisa and the picks) just to get a player. If we'd traded for Jay Bo or something, it would be different... but the Pronger trade was about one thing, and one thing only: winning a Stanley Cup.

To ignore that is to ignore why the trade was made, and what the stakes of that trade are.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 03:47 PM
  #59
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
I think it was. It was fun to watch both the team in general and him. He is entertaining, one of teh best of our generation, and is great to get a chance to se him.

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:06 PM
  #60
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 110,749
vCash: 5888
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoom View Post
the Flyers were 2 wins away from the trade accomplishing it's goal.
You answered your own question

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:07 PM
  #61
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No, but that trade was explicitly about putting us over the hump to win a Cup. You do not trade for a mid 30s defenseman and sell out a slew of young talent (Sbisa and the picks) just to get a player. If we'd traded for Jay Bo or something, it would be different... but the Pronger trade was about one thing, and one thing only: winning a Stanley Cup.

To ignore that is to ignore why the trade was made, and what the stakes of that trade are.
For once, I strongly disagree with you Jester.

That thinking applies to every single trade. Every trade is made with the expectation of making your team better, and to win the Stanley Cup. This was merely higher profile because it filled arguably our biggest weakness (aside from goaltending) with a superstar player. IMO, it still doesn't mean I'm allowed to judge it differently than any other trade. The man is a single player on a team of players; he can't win by himself and therefore I don't believe you can judge a trade based on the ultimate goal of winning a cup.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:09 PM
  #62
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
For once, I strongly disagree with you Jester.

That thinking applies to every single trade. Every trade is made with the expectation of making your team better, and to win the Stanley Cup. This was merely higher profile because it filled arguably our biggest weakness (aside from goaltending) with a superstar player. IMO, it still doesn't mean I'm allowed to judge it differently than any other trade. The man is a single player on a team of players; he can't win by himself and therefore I don't believe you can judge a trade based on the ultimate goal of winning a cup.
False.

Anaheim did not trade Chris Pronger in an attempt to win a Stanley Cup. They traded him because of the salary cap, and to re-stock with players that might give them a shot at another down the road.

We did not trade for, say, Ville Leino with the belief that it was him that was going to put us over the top.

We DID trade for Chris Pronger with that understanding and justification for paying the ransom that we did.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:15 PM
  #63
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,355
vCash: 500
Barring some immediate slowdown or burning of the team by his contract later, you cannot answer anything other than YES here.

You have to look at the pieces at the time, the 21st pick in a not-so-deep draft, a DMan who was a couple years from regular duty on a team with solid defense already, an oft-injured/high-priced winger who was expendable, a mid-round pick and a late first (which turned out to be VERY late ... though a good prospect was available).

I am a huge fan of Etem but it still wound up being #29 overall, on paper the Ducks looked boned there once we made the Finals, that they'd have limited chance of salvaging anything apart from Sbisa from the deal.

Pronger is not just one of the best rearguards in the NHL, he is one of the best players period. It was a steal, the usual bitter betties are in here pissing and moaning but apart from the potential bungle with the over-35 clause (which few have bothered mentioning) there is literally NO way you can answer no or even maybe to the question at hand.

Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:17 PM
  #64
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
False.

Anaheim did not trade Chris Pronger in an attempt to win a Stanley Cup. They traded him because of the salary cap, and to re-stock with players that might give them a shot at another down the road.

We did not trade for, say, Ville Leino with the belief that it was him that was going to put us over the top.

We DID trade for Chris Pronger with that understanding and justification for paying the ransom that we did.
And it didn't pay off? Take Pronger off the team, we miss the playoffs, with him we get within two wins of quaffing the bubbly.

The whole line of reasoning from you and at least a couple other posters here would also suggest the deal for LeClair and Desjardins was not worth it because we did not win. The goal is to give yourself a BETTER CHANCE at the Cup with every move, Philly accomplished that, Anaheim did not. I live in the Ducks' backyard, believe me, that deal HURT them and there is very limited foreseeable upside to it, even stealing Etem with that pick.

Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:18 PM
  #65
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
False.

Anaheim did not trade Chris Pronger in an attempt to win a Stanley Cup. They traded him because of the salary cap, and to re-stock with players that might give them a shot at another down the road.

We did not trade for, say, Ville Leino with the belief that it was him that was going to put us over the top.

We DID trade for Chris Pronger with that understanding and justification for paying the ransom that we did.
Every trade is made with the intentions of making the team better...so that you can then win the Stanley Cup.

It's just a matter of how directly it would affect such a goal. A trade for Pronger is directly filling a massive weakness with an incredible player. A trade such as Upshall and a 2nd for Carcillo isn't necessarily filling a huge need, but it's getting you the minuscule amount of capspace you need to keep Giroux up, who is deemed to be integral in the team's attempts at winning the cup.

All trades come down to winning. Sometimes trades are made with the primary goal of obtaining, picks, prospects, or cap space. Some trades are made with the intent of "putting you over the hump" it still all comes down to winning.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:22 PM
  #66
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,076
vCash: 500
For how good Pronger is, and for the contract we have him on, we really didn't give up that much IMO. Totally worth it

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:30 PM
  #67
Mgkibbles
Registered User
 
Mgkibbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gilbertsville, Pa
Posts: 2,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
Every trade is made with the intentions of making the team better...so that you can then win the Stanley Cup.

It's just a matter of how directly it would affect such a goal. A trade for Pronger is directly filling a massive weakness with an incredible player. A trade such as Upshall and a 2nd for Carcillo isn't necessarily filling a huge need, but it's getting you the minuscule amount of capspace you need to keep Giroux up, who is deemed to be integral in the team's attempts at winning the cup.

All trades come down to winning. Sometimes trades are made with the primary goal of obtaining, picks, prospects, or cap space. Some trades are made with the intent of "putting you over the hump" it still all comes down to winning.
I understand what you're getting at, but in the salary cap era not every move can be made with winning in mind. When Chicago traded Buff to Atlanta I doubt they said this trade will make us better at some point, they made the trade because they had to.

Now when it comes to the Pronger deal the Ducks traded him to clear cap space, but Anheim found themselves in a good position since teams are always willing to pony up a monster return on a HOF player.

Mgkibbles is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:31 PM
  #68
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgaspari View Post
was this a good trade for the 09/10 season? in the short term it was. but time will tell if it was a good trade for the long term. you are looking at paying pronger for 7 more years @ a $5 m cap hit which can not be removed from the salary cap. remember that paul and the organization are " cap challenged" so you do not know what ramification prongers contract will have have on future seasons.

the major problem i have with this deal is paul overpaid. he was the only gm serious about pronger and should have paid a lot less than what he did. he bid against himself and drove up the price. if he had paid fair market value maybe we would have had a few extra prospects in the system.

finally, the other problem paul created was that he traded for pronger on the last year of his contract. once he gave the ducks that large payment, he had to sign pronger at any price. right after pronger was traded, he mentioned how to andy strickland, that it would be nice to finish his career in st louis. because paul had no position of strenght in the contract negotioation ( and not knowing how the capped worked).he gave chris a contact that was bad the flyers organization's cap future.

I love the certainty with which we all know the market, the Ducks were shopping Pronger and made it quite clear that no garden-variety offer was going to turn him loose. It was going to take more than a first and a prospect and we gave them that plus another first, a third and an expendable roster player that would have had to go in order to get him even as a free agent.

The argument is that he would been an FA in a year but his availability, desire and terms would all have been unknowns in that case so it WAS worth it to lock him down in my opinion. The guy is one of the few truly singular commodities in the NHL and certainly the only one that would be available by trade.

The contract sucks if the Flyers are left paying him against the cap in years he is not playing, that's it. The money itself means nothing and the annual cap hit for at least the first two or three years of the deal is actually a larcenous bargain. Time will tell if the Flyers can navigate their way through the situation and make his $5M cap hit in the front half of the deal a bargain rather than any non-productive or flat out non-playing years kill them. I don't fully understand the over-35 clause and even if I did I wouldn't have sufficient knowledge of the CBA to see a way around it but I am banking that a front office full of executives and lawyers just might be able to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
We win a cup when he's here? Yes. We don't win one when he's here? No. Can't tell yet.
You make the moves to get as good as you can and Pronger made a bigger impact on the Flyers than ANY acquisition did for ANY team last year. That's just a fact. Take the whole win-or-nothing attitude to the Lakers or Yankees, dude, we all want the Flyers to win, we're just not all ready to write newsclipping death threats to the front office to accomplish it like you are. Kudos for your dedication

Quote:
Originally Posted by JVR21 View Post
I guess it was "worth it", but I think we all agree we sure as hell could have given up less. At the very least we could have given a 2nd instead of one of the 1sts.

Edit: Oops. Don't have any 2nds.
Well now you are coming around, huh? Lol, the difference between a first and a second is marginal when you've moving #29 overall (though it turned out to be an excellent prospect to weaken an otherwise bulletproof argument). Maybe they could have tweeked this or that and paid *slightly* less but the price was not as high as it looked to begin with and any time you are acquiring the best piece in the deal it takes some unexpected development for you to lose the deal. Sbisa is not going to be Lidstrom and so far the Ducks have actually have the unforeseen calamities with injuries to Lupul, trading one pick and losing draft position because of a playoff run while the Flyers have had the good fortune of being led through the playoffs by a top five DMan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No, but that trade was explicitly about putting us over the hump to win a Cup. You do not trade for a mid 30s defenseman and sell out a slew of young talent (Sbisa and the picks) just to get a player. If we'd traded for Jay Bo or something, it would be different... but the Pronger trade was about one thing, and one thing only: winning a Stanley Cup.


To ignore that is to ignore why the trade was made, and what the stakes of that trade are.
If we traded for JBo we would have missed the playoffs and Holmgren should have been FIRED. I actually covered the Flames part time this year and I am a defender of JBouw to many critics but Pronger he is not nor will he ever be. I agree with the motivation and it has to be viewed as a success in light of that motivation. With Pronger, we very very nearly achieved that goal, without him, we would have been on a fishing trip in early April.

Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:33 PM
  #69
Valhoun*
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 10,311
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Valhoun*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Duberstein View Post
If we traded for JBo we would have missed the playoffs and Holmgren should have been FIRED. I actually covered the Flames part time this year and I am a defender of JBouw to many critics but Pronger he is not nor will he ever be. I agree with the motivation and it has to be viewed as a success in light of that motivation. With Pronger, we very very nearly achieved that goal, without him, we would have been on a fishing trip in early April.
Well, that would have been a move with the Stanley Cup in mind...

Also, it is common knowledge that the Flyers overpaid for Pronger. No other team was really in the running. Homer was bidding against himself. Sure, that's 20/20 hindsight at work but it does show how easily Homer gets rattled at times if he thinks a deal isn't gonna go through.

Valhoun* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:38 PM
  #70
Andrew Knoll
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Andrew Knoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 2,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhoun View Post
Well, that would have been a move with the Stanley Cup in mind...

Also, it is common knowledge that the Flyers overpaid for Pronger. No other team was really in the running. Homer was bidding against himself. Sure, that's 20/20 hindsight at work but it does show how easily Homer gets rattled at times if he thinks a deal isn't gonna go through.
I'd say it is the other way around, at the time it seemed like potential overpayment, now it seems like a bargain because of how things shook out with all the players involved.

It's possible he could have gotten a little better bargain but we would be talking about not tossing in the third or maybe changing how far out the picks were or something along those lines.

The Flyers were NOT the only team interested in Pronger but they may have been the only team interested at quite this price tag. That said, the Ducks were not 100% committed to moving him, they could have waited until the deadline and gotten pretty good return so to move him at either the draft or the previous season's deadline they would have had to get an offer higher than what they were hearing (generally a first and a pick) from other teams.

So yes, in a way the Flyers were "bidding against themselves" but not entirely and there always existed the possibility of Pronger staying put until later. Conceivably Philly could have waited it out until the trade deadline or even the following year's free agency period but that tosses in a bunch of variables along with a guarantee of a higher cap hit.

The trade was ABSOLUTELY worth it, the question is was the CONTRACT EXTENSION worth it and we won't know that for a couple years.

Andrew Knoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:39 PM
  #71
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgkibbles View Post
I understand what you're getting at, but in the salary cap era not every move can be made with winning in mind. When Chicago traded Buff to Atlanta I doubt they said this trade will make us better at some point, they made the trade because they had to.

Now when it comes to the Pronger deal the Ducks traded him to clear cap space, but Anheim found themselves in a good position since teams are always willing to pony up a monster return on a HOF player.
I would still argue that every trade is made with winning in mind (the Chicago trades being perhaps extra special because they were literally forced to. However, they were still doing so, so that they could field a team and compete the next season). The question is in what window of time is winning the objective? Is it now? Is it in 3 years? That's the only difference IMO.

It's funny, I started arguing that every trade is about winning...it almost appears as if I am now arguing the Pronger trade was a failure because we didn't ultimately win the cup, which was not my original argument. I was just arguing that I believe every single deal is, indeed, about winning, and judging every single trade based upon whether or not you win the Stanley Cup is not fair. Again, if so, we haven't made a good trade since 1975. You could make the same statement for most teams.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:39 PM
  #72
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Duberstein View Post
And it didn't pay off? Take Pronger off the team, we miss the playoffs, with him we get within two wins of quaffing the bubbly.
1) You don't know that, because you don't know what other moves would have been made.

2) We didn't have a parade, the trade is not a success... yet.

Quote:
The whole line of reasoning from you and at least a couple other posters here would also suggest the deal for LeClair and Desjardins was not worth it because we did not win. The goal is to give yourself a BETTER CHANCE at the Cup with every move, Philly accomplished that, Anaheim did not. I live in the Ducks' backyard, believe me, that deal HURT them and there is very limited foreseeable upside to it, even stealing Etem with that pick.
The Leclair and Desjardins trade isn't even remotely comparable. John Leclair was 25 when he came to Philly, and Desjardins was 25 as well. That trade was about changing the team up because the team was a *ing mess before they got there... it was not about "putting us over the top."

Quote:
Originally Posted by DUHockey9 View Post
Every trade is made with the intentions of making the team better...so that you can then win the Stanley Cup.

It's just a matter of how directly it would affect such a goal. A trade for Pronger is directly filling a massive weakness with an incredible player. A trade such as Upshall and a 2nd for Carcillo isn't necessarily filling a huge need, but it's getting you the minuscule amount of capspace you need to keep Giroux up, who is deemed to be integral in the team's attempts at winning the cup.

All trades come down to winning. Sometimes trades are made with the primary goal of obtaining, picks, prospects, or cap space. Some trades are made with the intent of "putting you over the hump" it still all comes down to winning.
Some trades are made with the primary goal of winning the Stanley Cup. Chris Pronger was traded for with the primary goal of winning the Stanley Cup. If we do not win the Stanley Cup, then that trade failed to accomplish its goal. It wasn't about "improving" our team. It wasn't about "winning". It wasn't about having a nice little playoff run.

It was about winning the Stanley Cup.

If you cannot see the difference between trading for Chris Pronger and trading for Ville Leino, then I don't know what to tell you. Holmgre sold the **** out to acquire Chris Pronger. It's that simple. He then signed him to an over-35 contract (a necessity given how much we gave up for him) that could cripple us in the future.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:42 PM
  #73
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Duberstein View Post
The trade was ABSOLUTELY worth it, the question is was the CONTRACT EXTENSION worth it and we won't know that for a couple years.
If Holmgren traded that much for 1-year of Pronger he'd be an even bigger moron than I think he is as of now... and I think he's pretty damn stupid. That extension was a NECESSITY to make that deal even remotely make sense.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:43 PM
  #74
RIPRichardsCarter
Registered User
 
RIPRichardsCarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,954
vCash: 500
Two words:
**** yes.

RIPRichardsCarter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2010, 05:44 PM
  #75
DUHockey9
Registered User
 
DUHockey9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hogwarts
Country: United States
Posts: 4,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Some trades are made with the primary goal of winning the Stanley Cup. Chris Pronger was traded for with the primary goal of winning the Stanley Cup. If we do not win the Stanley Cup, then that trade failed to accomplish its goal. It wasn't about "improving" our team. It wasn't about "winning". It wasn't about having a nice little playoff run.

It was about winning the Stanley Cup.

If you cannot see the difference between trading for Chris Pronger and trading for Ville Leino, then I don't know what to tell you. Holmgre sold the **** out to acquire Chris Pronger. It's that simple. He then signed him to an over-35 contract (a necessity given how much we gave up for him) that could cripple us in the future.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I liken this argument to people judging athletes (Quarterbacks in football in partifuclar) based on how many championships (Superbowls) they've won. I HATE that argument. It's a team game, and yes a QB can have a dramatic impact on a team (much like, say a Chris Pronger can), but it's not the end all be all judge of a player. Just like, I don't believe winning a Stanley Cup is the end all be all of judging the Chris Pronger trade (or any trade). Trent Dilfer won a Superbowl, Dan Marino did not...does that mean Trent Dilfer is better or more successful than Marino? Maybe it's just that Dilfer's team excelled while Marino's failed. You can apply this same logic to evaluating trades IMO.

DUHockey9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.