And before anyone says it, yes, obviously the circumstances were different for all of those teams-- the point is, judging the success of trades by whether or not teams won the Cup is obviously stupid.
Hell, the Gretzky trade didnt even result in a Cup for LA
One good year does not make a successful trade either.
So that's the metric used to judge trades? Please.
Thornton traded for Primeau, Stuart, Sturm. Cup? Bust
Ottawa trades Yashin for Chara and Spezza. Cup? Bust
Kovalchuk trade? Lost in game 6 of the SCF, I guess that's a bust.
If you want to tell me the Pronger trade didnt work out as planned, then fine. But to call it a bust because we didnt win the Cup is downright idiotic. I dont think that's what you're saying, GKJ, but the point remains-- in no sense of the word was the Pronger trade a bust.
And I'd also like to point out that no trade is made simply to "win the Cup". General managers, and reasonable fans, understand that winning the Cup has a lot of luck involved. Thus, trades are made to improve your chances of winning the Cup. Pronger did that-- therefor, it's a successful trade.
The Flyers judge themselves only on whether or not they win the Stanley Cup.
1) It was made to put them over the top....but without the goalie situation stabilized. We traded away 3 first rounders and Lupul (when we have good history with 1st rounders). You could say that was mortgaging the future. And we didn't win a Cup.
2) Including the playoffs, Pronger played 171 games in a Flyers uniform, essentially 2 seasons. Basically a longer rental.
I'm not questioning making the trade at the time, though people did express concern, and rightfully so. But to say that it wasn't a bust...
I don't think that means they put a bad grade on every personnel move they have made since 1975. Wouldn't be very instructive.
I agree, but doesn't mean they don't. They blew up the core of the team 12 months after losing in the Finals in order to 'better their chances' or whatever, so if they did that, you could conceivably use the same standard evaluating the Pronger trade. He was brought in to put the Flyers over the top, and despite being as close as they got, didn't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7
That's fine. So do I. Most Flyers fans do.
ButI, and the Flyers, dont judge trades on whether or not they win the Stanley Cup. That would be stupid.
Do you really think Holmgren regrets the Pronger trade? Gimme a break.
He shouldn't regret making the trade for Pronger, he should regret the fact he thought his job was done after making it. It would have been worse of he didn't have to fire Stevens (which should have happened after 2009), and got outright lucky trading for Leino. He devalued the result of his own trade by not having a third pairing defense or a valid second/replacement goaltender should/if/when Emery went down, and all those minutes Pronger had to eat affected him for two summers and then into the concussion. He sold out for Pronger, and didn't protect the asset.
He shouldn't regret making the trade for Pronger, he should regret the fact he thought his job was done after making it. It would have been worse of he didn't have to fire Stevens (which should have happened after 2009), and got outright lucky trading for Leino. He devalued the result of his own trade by not having a third pairing defense or a valid second/replacement goaltender should/if/when Emery went down, and all those minutes Pronger had to eat affected him for two summers and then into the concussion. He sold out for Pronger, and didn't protect the asset.
Exactly.
None of that makes the Pronger trade a "bust", though.
The trade did exactly what it was supposed to do. It allowed us to contend for the Cup and strongly increased our chances of winning.
But if you were expecting the trade to guarantee us a Stanley Cup win-- then the problem here lies with you.
None of that makes the Pronger trade a "bust", though.
The trade did exactly what it was supposed to do. It allowed us to contend for the Cup and strongly increased our chances of winning.
But if you were expecting the trade to guarantee us a Stanley Cup win-- then the problem here lies with you.
No trade guarantees anything but the trade was an indication that it was an all-or-nothing year. They gave up assets that could have helped give the team a better roster 1-20 instead of putting the eggs in the basket of #1. Winning the Cup is/was the only way the Pronger trade can be considered a success, demonstrated by what the organization did two years afterward.
No trade guarantees anything but the trade was an indication that it was an all-or-nothing year. They gave up assets that could have helped give the team a better roster 1-20 instead of putting the eggs in the basket of #1. Winning the Cup is/was the only way the Pronger trade can be considered a success, demonstrated by what the organization did two years afterward.
A trade may be determined a success while the season is determined a failure, you know?
The trade had nothing to do with our failure to meet "expectations" that year. In fact-- the trade was the single most important factor in us almost meeting "expectations". Every other factor that resulted in our failure should have absolutely no bearing on whether we call the trade a success.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue. Again, it's obviously your expectations that were off. "All or nothing" doesnt apply to the trade-- only the season.
A trade may be determined a success while the season is determined a failure, you know?
The trade had nothing to do with our failure to meet "expectations" that year. In fact-- the trade was the single most important factor in us almost meeting "expectations". Every other factor that resulted in our failure should have absolutely no bearing on whether we call the trade a success.
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue. Again, it's obviously your expectations that were off. "All or nothing" doesnt apply to the trade-- only the season.
They did not meet expectations in 2010. As fun as the spring as 2010 was, they did not complete the job. That was for other reasons, but whether or not it's a "bust" or a success that became a victim of circumstances, the premise of the trade was not met and the consequences trickled into subsequent years.
By the way, my expectations were that the team was not in position to make a trade like that for another year, after Giroux and JVR had a full year with the team, along with presumably a new coach from the start of training camp in 2010-11. After the trade was made, it was all-or-nothing, and the GM failed to properly put the team in the best possible position to achieve the only result that could have been considered a success that year.
They did not meet expectations in 2010. As fun as the spring as 2010 was, they did not complete the job. That was for other reasons, but whether or not it's a "bust" or a success that became a victim of circumstances, the premise of the trade was not met and the consequences trickled into subsequent years.
By the way, my expectations were that the team was not in position to make a trade like that for another year, after Giroux and JVR had a full year with the team, along with presumably a new coach from the start of training camp in 2010-11. After the trade was made, it was all-or-nothing, and the GM failed to properly put the team in the best possible position to achieve the only result that could have been considered a success that year.
How can you expect a Cup win?
I expect the Flyers to contend for the Cup each year. I do not expect the team to win, though. No reasonable person can expect something that involves so much luck.
I expect the Flyers to contend for the Cup each year. I do not expect the team to win, though. No reasonable person can expect something that involves so much luck.
Again, your problem is your expectations.
Sure they were, they made an outrageous trade (I felt) at the time, so I wasn't interested in excuses in 2010.
Holmgren then tried to make up for it an entire year too late. Then it got blown up a year after that.
My personal expectations were lower than every one has had two years running, so if for one year they're generally the same as everyone else's after they make an high risk move that could potentially hurt the team if things go wrong, then so be it. Then, I gave them a complete pass for not one, but two years, which in other arguments is seen as more outrageous, so I guess you can't win either way.
Regardless, this thread went a place it shouldn't have. I'm guessing someone ran off with the Richards comparisons and Pronger's Yang to Richards' Ying got brought up.
Wrong on both counts. You'd have a tough time proving to me that the Flyers thought Pronger would be their #1 at 43 years old.
Pronger was brought here to increase our chances at winning a Cup.
How is that anything but a success?
See, I can do it too.
Do I think they expected him to play until he is 43? Probably not. Do I think they expected 4-5 healthy years from him? Yes.
They would need more than one healthy year to increase their chances at a Cup. As you know it is hard to win a Cup in any given year. You want as many shots as possible to maximize your chances. We had 1 shot with Pronger. How was that increasing our chances? If anything it decreased our chances long term because now they are left scrambling for a replacement with nothing on the farm. It lead to them making a poor trade for a kid who struggled on the 3rd pairing.
Do I think they expected him to play until he is 43? Probably not. Do I think they expected 4-5 healthy years from him? Yes.
They would need more than one healthy year to increase their chances at a Cup. As you know it is hard to win a Cup in any given year. You want as many shots as possible to maximize your chances. We had 1 shot with Pronger. How was that increasing our chances? If anything it decreased our chances long term because now they are left scrambling for a replacement with nothing on the farm. It lead to them making a poor trade for a kid who struggled on the 3rd pairing.
Without the Pronger trade, we dont make it to game 6 of the SCF.
How is "scrambling for a replacement" any different than if we had never traded for him in the first place? We still wouldnt have a #1 defeneseman.....
You're judging the trade based off of your unreasonable expectations-- not on the actual reality of the situation.
You have yet to provide one negative factor that was a direct result of the trade. I certainly cant think of any. Are we really struggling because we're missing Lupul or Sbisa? The picks wouldnt make the slightest impact for about two more years...
I expect the Flyers to contend for the Cup each year. I do not expect the team to win, though. No reasonable person can expect something that involves so much luck.
Again, your problem is your expectations.
I agree with this ! It takes a good team and some pretty damn good luck to win a cup for the most part, with the exception of some dominant teams from years ago.[ Montreal etc].Look at Tampa Bay just last year.....OT game 7 against Boston,and had a few great chances to win that game and advance ?
Things like hit post, crazy bounces off the boards as a goalie is going around to stop the puck behind his, freak injuries to star players, ice conditions getting soft due to warmer weather causing a puck to bounce over a wide open player in the slot etc .....If a person judges a Hockey team's success solely on cups they are in for a loooooooooong depressed summer for years and decades at a time .
Winning a championship should be the goal of any team in any sport, but i certainly would not consider a season where a team goes deep into the playoffs not a great achievement ?For example, this video still gives me goose bumps.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZuXigDy_ic
Laughton looks to be the perfect third line center that can chip in offensively and play special teams. I can't wait till this guy makes it to the Flyers team in a year or two. I like how the Flyers always try to bring in heart and soul type players. The grit on this team will be here for many many seasons. If Laughton is half the player that Richards is this will be a great draft pick.
Giroux
Couts
Laughton
That is a great top 3 for the next 8 years or so. Move Schenn to wing and if there is an injury move Schenn to center and they wouldn't miss a beat.
Laughton looks to be the perfect third line center that can chip in offensively and play special teams. I can't wait till this guy makes it to the Flyers team in a year or two. I like how the Flyers always try to bring in heart and soul type players. The grit on this team will be here for many many seasons. If Laughton is half the player that Richards is this will be a great draft pick.
Giroux
Couts
Laughton
That is a great top 3 for the next 8 years or so. Move Schenn to wing and if there is an injury move Schenn to center and they wouldn't miss a beat.
I like Laughton's skill set and what I've read about him; however, I'd be surprised if "perfect third-line centre" was handwritten in the margin next to a team's options for a 1st round pick. Increase the surprise when a franchise has such a glaring non-forward need. Laughton with a 2nd round pick? Great choice.
1) They planned on building their defense around him for 8 years.
2) They thought he would be the missing piece for a Cup.
What they got in reality:
One good (healthy) season from Pronger.
How is the trade anything but a failure? When did Flyers fans set the bar so low?
It may have failed, but a GM's job is to make the best decisions possible for his team. The Pronger trade was a great decision at the time, that didn't work because of a freak injury. You can't blame the GM for something like that.
I don't think the trade was a success, but it's one that I don't really regret making.
