Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Then the Gilmour trade might not be as bad as people think, under that condition. I still didn't like the return, but on the day of the trade you had a player in a mid season holdout on one side and guy who'd scored 50 a year prior (and who had four straight 20 goals seasons, plus 17 in 52 games in another) on the other side. Of course Risebrough was no hockey analyst so he couldn't see Leeman was in the process of falling off a cliff.
|
That mid-season holdout had lasted for all of 24 hours, and only happened because of the incompetence of the very same general manager who made the trade. You certainly can't use it to excuse him, with or without the benefit of hindsight.
As for Leeman, he had
already fallen off the cliff. His track record made it clear that he was only a prolific scorer if you put him on a line with a top-quality playmaking centreman. The Flames had just one player on their roster who could have got the most out of Leeman: Doug Gilmour. So after they traded Gilmour for Leeman, all they had to do was put him on Gilmour's line… errr…
After that horrible beginning, the more players Risebrough added to the deal, the worse it got. Even on the day of the trade, it was obvious that it was a complete botch.
If you were to talk about a trade that seemed to make sense at the time but went sour in retrospect, that would probably do a better job of supporting your point.