Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
The problem with the Hamonic deal for me isn't the cost. In isolation, it's alright. The problem is that Treliving took a major asset in that first rounder, and spent it on a position that was already a relative strength: Defence. And he did this, despite knowing that he had a major hole on right wing. A major hole that we still have today.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Present day defence wasn't a strength. The Flames had Stone/Brodie as a second pairing, were losing Engelland, and Kulak was not a regular. None of the kids were ready to step up yet, including Andersson and they are probably all a couple years away from being any kind of impact players.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackey
Not to mention Stone hadn't signed yet either.
|
Every time I see this false narrative I'm going to post the organizational depth chart that we had at the time of the Hamonic trade. People really need to stop saying we had a strong defense. We had 3 good players, but it was borderline AHL level in terms of depth.
Giordano-Hamilton
Brodie-Bartkowski
Kulak-Wotherspoon
Prospects that were too young:
Andersson-Kylington
Valimaki
How do you look at that potential lineup and NOT go out and make the Hamonic trade?