Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Talk about not recognizing the argument. I’m saying those were (a) great deadline acquisitions (that year anyway, they certainly weren’t later and Neimenen wasn’t even re-signed); (b) they’d be panned if Treliving made them because they weren’t skill players; and (c) they are the same kind of grinding players Treliving and Sutter acquired except the latest round that obviously Sutter requested is just too old.
|
Well I'm glad you now recognize they were great deadline acquisitions. How they played two years later and how the club was constructed post lockout isn't very relevant IMO.
I stand by my opinion this club needs to improve the top 9 for this year's playoffs. The three I referenced were top 9 (on that team) which is why I pointed out their playoff performance. It's a hometown example of how you don't need to sell the farm for one player when your team is more than one player away from being a contender. Giving Sutter a few more NHL calibre options up front would be huge. They don't need to be elite scorers or playmakers, since this team wins by shutting the other team down.
As for the bolded, why differentiate who is acquiring said players? Is it an attempt to deflect accountability or something? Not every discussion needs to be a referendum on Treliving. That's an unnecessary sidetrack to talking about what the club should be doing over the next few weeks.