Did Colorado trade for Elliott to tank?

[Countdown0]

Originally Posted by SensFanDan

There is no "deserve" or "right" or "wrong" in sports or games.

There are only the game rules and social contracts imposed by your surroundings.

People say things like this a lot, but karma doesn't care about how logical you try to make it sound.

These "sports and games" are a part of life, and so they are subject to the same judgement of appropriate morality from the out side viewership. You can try to rationalize it however you like, but the draft as it is in its present state (the worse you are, the earlier you pick) functions to create parity and fair competition in the league.

When you deliberately tank and try to finish worse than your team is, you are basically spitting on that fair system, as such you deserve to be b***h slapped by karma, because you are trying to eliminate fairness where it is supposed to be present.

On topic: yeah, unless colorado included getting a better spot in the draft as an incentive to trade Anderson for Elliot, then the trade made no sense.

[Bilbo Baggins]

The Colorado GM knew exactly what he was doing. In getting Elliot, he was ensuring a top pick in the draft. I just hope that it bites them in the a##. It's within the rules, but still stinks.

I would also say that Edmonton was making sure they kept their top pick as well. It seemed every good player on their team got some sort of ingrown toenail down the stretch, which ensured they were out for the season. I guess they have a lot more experience than us at perfecting the "tank".

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Teams that deliberately tank the way Colorado did usually end up having a boatload of screwed up young players by the end of it. You enourage the kids to fail, and when it comes time to win, they simply don't know how.

[Nabokov20]

Not sure. Hindsight is really 20/20 in this situation. To be honest, it worked out for the Sens just the same. I would've wanted RNH, but Mika and Andy are quite fine in my books.

[John Holmes]

Anderson is worth the difference between picking 2nd and 6th.

Who knows, we may have the best player anyway. It's not like there was a Crosby or Ovechkin in this draft.

[GK]

Originally Posted by John Holmes

Anderson is worth the difference between picking 2nd and 6th.

Who knows, we may have the best player anyway. It's not like there was a Crosby or Ovechkin in this draft.

This, I felt like all the talent was the same.. No one amazing.

[SpezDispenser]

No, they thought they could get Elliott back to being a goalie with a bright young future.

[Micklebot]

Originally Posted by John Holmes

Anderson is worth the difference between picking 2nd and 6th.

Who knows, we may have the best player anyway. It's not like there was a Crosby or Ovechkin in this draft.

QFT,

Besides, this revisionist history amuses me. It's not like Anderson was playing great hockey for the Avalanche at the time. Their crappy play had less to do with Elliott sucking and more to do with the team being crappy, mostly due to injuries.

Yeah, Elliott sucked for them, but they could have just played their backup to try to lose games. This conspiracy theory that they picked up Elliott, solely to improve their draft position reeks of people with tinfoil hats hiding in their basements.

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

Some of the moves made recently by Colorado have been insanely idiotic so it wouldn't surprise me if they thought Elliott could win them some games.