Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina
Yup and keep in mind I'm not just talking about line-up - but rather the overall asset base of the organization.
It is tremendously shallow and has been for decades by virtue of
- Poor drafting
- Regimes that swapped picks to go for it
- Unwilligness to trade aging players until their value was virtually nothing
So when the rebuild FINALLY started (2-3 years too late) there was no foundation to build from at all.
So should we wonder why we still have significant holes holding the team back? To try and fill those holes would gut the asset base further.
Just look at what they got for Iginla, Bouwmeester, Kipper and Regehr combined. Unless Poirier or Klimchuk turn out (probably 3rd liners at best) the return is sweet f all.
|
Well if you are arguing we have an asset thin organization, you will find no objection here. But it seems like you are trying to pin all the responsibility on Feaster, Sutter et al and I'm not sure current management is so much different. They have had the benefit of super high draft picks, which the aforementioned never had. And you ignore some of the assets (Brodie, Backlund, Gio) that did carry over.
Has current management traded away picks? In 2 drafts, BT has traded away a first and 3 seconds. Maybe you like the return on those trades. Well I liked the Jokinen trade when it happened. A lot.
You mention the lack of return for aging veterans. That is certainly disappointing but is there an example of a winning organization that was built on the returns for it's aging stars? I can't think of any. Hindsight is great but if you are supposed to trade away veterans every year you're not contending, why in the world are guys like Brouwer and Giordano on this team? Their trade value declines every year.