10 lies that all NHL fans tell themselves

[GreenLantern2814]

Here's one: "That awful trade we made was actually okay because we achieved X". Could be the Cup could be a playoff run where they win a round or two.

Said after trading Hull for a backup and a midrange defenseman. I know, "we wouldn't have won without them". Really? In 1989, we HAD to trade the 4th best goal scorer in the history of the sport for depth.

No. I don't buy it. A bad trade is a bad trade. That was a horrific trade.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

This is pretty much the definition of over-rating a prospect pool. Every draft looks pretty sweet until it comes time for the players to turn pro. Unless you are counting Hamilton as a draft pick - I see no way you can rate 2015 as a potential best draft in franchise history. They only picked 5 guys, two of them are already non-prospects and you've got no sure fire blue chip guys. Sure they look fine in the AHL but so do a lot of players.

Yeah, I'm not going to debate 'best in franchise history', but there are definitely a couple blue chip prospects. Andersson and Kyllington lead the Heat in points (among defensemen), and both have been rock solid. I doubt there's another team in the A that can claim that their two best defensemen are 19 and 20.

They are, without question, both blue chippers.

And Mangiapane is a beauty too.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Here's one: "That awful trade we made was actually okay because we achieved X". Could be the Cup could be a playoff run where they win a round or two.

Said after trading Hull for a backup and a midrange defenseman. I know, "we wouldn't have won without them". Really? In 1989, we HAD to trade the 4th best goal scorer in the history of the sport for depth.

No. I don't buy it. A bad trade is a bad trade. That was a horrific trade.

I dunno
It's our only cup. Whatever got us that matters.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Here's one: "That awful trade we made was actually okay because we achieved X". Could be the Cup could be a playoff run where they win a round or two.

Said after trading Hull for a backup and a midrange defenseman. I know, "we wouldn't have won without them". Really? In 1989, we HAD to trade the 4th best goal scorer in the history of the sport for depth.

No. I don't buy it. A bad trade is a bad trade. That was a horrific trade.

Oh man, theres so many more moving pieces than that. We also had Martin St. Louis and Marc Savard at times. Sometimes making a decision immediately to achieve a goal is required rather than constantly attempting to set yourself up for the future.

And doing that requires sacrifices and sacrifices have consequences.

There is no such thing as 'winning all the time.'

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I dunno
It's our only cup. Whatever got us that matters.

No kidding. If I could go back in time, no way do I undo that trade and roll the dice.

If the Flames had been a dynasty and Ramage and Wamsley moved on, maybe. But it was one and done.

[Har-Calgary]

But if they were, they wouldn't land a superstar by bundling up a half-dozen marginal assets into one package. That's not how trades work. Your third-line winger, fourth-line centre, backup goalie, three C-prospects and two third-round picks aren't going to get the deal done.

I'm not saying I disagree with this but didn't we kinda do this with Dougie? However you feel about how he's played as a flame, at the time he was considered one of the best young dman in the game, just coming off a season in Boston where he put up 42 pts in 72 games as a 21 year old! Sure we threw in a midround first rounder, and of course Boston had cap issues, but that has to be one of the more alarming trades in recent history.

[thefoss1957]

About #7: Ask a 'Hawk fan to compare the last two Wirtz regimes. Under the ownership of Dollar Bill Wirtz, the Chicago Blackhawks were named by ESPN in 2004 as the worst franchise in sports. In 2002, ESPN ranked Wirtz as the third greediest owner in all of sports. Now, simply compare the recent rankings for Rockwell Wirtz...top 10 in almost ALL positive categories.

[JD]

Heh, ask Blues fans if they would rather have had Hull or a Stanley Cup. Since we did win the Cup and already had one of the highest scoring rosters in NHL history, turning Hull into depth wasn't that head scratching. Plus I don't think anyone predicted he would be as prolific as he ended up being.

[McG]

lie #19; when I post on a bulletin board like CP, everyone appreciates it when I post off topic

with the flames being above .500, and the best ever player being Gretzky/Orr/Crosby...

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, I'm not going to debate 'best in franchise history', but there are definitely a couple blue chip prospects. Andersson and Kyllington lead the Heat in points (among defensemen), and both have been rock solid. I doubt there's another team in the A that can claim that their two best defensemen are 19 and 20.

They are, without question, both blue chippers.

And Mangiapane is a beauty too.

I consider blue chippers guys who skip the AHL and are surefire nhl players. Both look fine now, but not blue chippers in the Tkachuk category. Suppose you could call them bluechippers if you consider there to be 50 bluechippers outside of the NHL right now.

[Jay Random]

Dunno. To me, in hockey terms, ‘blue chip’ always goes with ‘prospect’. If a guy goes straight from the draft into the NHL, he's really only a prospect for that one summer. By that standard, the number of blue-chip prospects while the games are actually being played would be zero. Even if the standard is going straight from junior to the NHL, the number is very small.

Given that he's playing defence, a position where hardly anyone makes the NHL at age 19, and that he is already playing in the AHL when most players his age are in junior, I don't mind calling Kylington a blue-chip prospect. If he were in the CHL this year, or still in Sweden, he could be a blue chipper by your definitions; but since he is in the AHL at the same age, he isn't? I don't get that.

Andersson I'm on the fence about – he has more points so far and seems to be progressing in defensive play, but I don't know whether his conditioning has improved as much as necessary.

[tvp2003]

Part of me is thankful that CP (and the internet, twitter, etc.) was not around back in the 80's and early 90's. Can you imagine the furor that would have taken place on:

- The Brett Hull trade thread (and having to re-visit that)
- The Trevor Kidd draft pick thread (and having to re-visit that too)
- The Sergei Makarov signing thread (OMG!)
- The Doug Gilmour trade thread (WTF Risebrough!)
- etc.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I consider blue chippers guys who skip the AHL and are surefire nhl players. Both look fine now, but not blue chippers in the Tkachuk category. Suppose you could call them bluechippers if you consider there to be 50 bluechippers outside of the NHL right now.

Why not? In my opinion a "blue chip" prospect is one which looks like he will round into an impact NHL player—either a top-six forward or a top-four defenseman. I expect every team to have one or two of those.

Players that jump straight from juniour to the NHL I would otherwise classify as elite prospects.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I consider blue chippers guys who skip the AHL and are surefire nhl players. Both look fine now, but not blue chippers in the Tkachuk category. Suppose you could call them bluechippers if you consider there to be 50 bluechippers outside of the NHL right now.

To me a blue chip prospect is one with a decent NHL floor (like a #4/5 defenseman or a 3rd line forward) and a decent NHL ceiling (like a #2/3 defenseman or a good 2nd line forward or better). The actual timeline to that doesn't really matter.