Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
Many of those personnel losses are justifiable when the teams are in contention and going for something.
|
Ok, here's where they stood before they lost the player, then, keeping in mind the Flames lost in round 1, 4-2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Yeah, it's crazy man.
I mean, St.Louis lost Pietrangelo for nothing. (Lost in round 1, 4-2)
Boston lost Krug for... nothing. (Lost in round 2, 4-1)
Arizona lost Hall for... nothing. (Lost in round 1, 4-1)
Vancouver lost Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev for... nothing. (Lost in round 2, 4-3)
Edmonton lost Larsson for... right, nothing. (Lost in Qualifier)
Florida lost Hoffman for... nothing! (Lost in Qualifier)
Toronto lost Barrie for nothing. (Lost in Qualifier)
Washington lost Holtby for nothing. (Lost in round 1, 4-1)
Chicago lost Crawford for... nothing! (Lost in round 1, 4-1)
Tampa lost Shattenkirk for... you're catching on... nothing. (Won the Cup)
|
So, what's your definition of "many"? Because Vancouver made it to round 2 it was actually ok to lose 3 valuable players for nothing, and not even trade for signing rights?
I count 7 other teams who performed the same or worse as the Flames and lost guys for nothing... out of a whopping 10 teams... so that's "many" or "most"? Out of those teams, only 2 made it out of the first round this year. The other 8 combined for a HUGE 6 wins between them, with half of those coming from one team.
This is what a majority of "contenders" looks like to you? Many of those loses were justifiable because you see 6 playoff wins spread across 8 teams indicative that those teams were really "going for it"?
Weird.