Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
Always pointing to Yakupov, rather than McDavid/Barkov/MacKinnon etc.
Point being, don't toss around Yakupov like it's some historic level failure/cautionary tale when the team that screwed that up so hard is still actually way better than the Flames.
|
I can name drop Dach, Kotkaniemi, Turcotte, Patrick, Puljujarvi, Dal Colle, Juolevi, Murray, or G. Reinhart if you prefer.
I know a certain section of the fanbase wants to pretend these players don’t exist or weren’t drafted as high as they were by teams that “tanked” or were just bad but they’re just as much part of reality as McDavid, Barkov, and MacKinnon are. You can’t just ignore them because they don’t fit the narrative and make it a little more difficult to pretend you have it all figured out.
It was a facetious comment highlighting the silliness of thinking one or two vets are holding the team back from achieving their true ranking destiny. The fact that the Flames traded away 70% of their vets and got better seems totally lost on people who believe this.
And the Kent article is so silly. The Flames spent 71% of their cap on vets? A team with the lowest cap and at least one vet making over 10M? YOU DON’T SAY?? lol. So did the much lauded Sharks. Wonder if there’s a correlation between rebuilding teams at the cap floor and spending most of their cap on vets. Guess we’ll never know.