Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,931
- 5,716
I have to say that I am enjoying the discussion here and the contributions being made. It seems we are at our best as a forum when we drill down and leave the personal stuff out of it.
Every trade and contract signing is a gamble and not every gamble can be a success. Armstrong has made some good moves and some not so good moves, but I think it's more fair to consider why he made those moves in the first place rather than simply focusing on the outcome. OK, people hate the Krug signing. So should Army have not signed anyone after Petro left? How do we know plan B would have worked out any better?
We have no way of knowing what trades were available or pursued but did not become reality. It's not like teams talk about who they were willing or wanted to trade but could not seal the deal.....and for good reason. That's why the question "who should we have traded for" can't be answered unless the guy was traded to somebody, and even that scenario is not a sure thing.No one has the ability to know exactly who could/would have been targeted in an alternate timeline where he doesn't sign Krug or exactly how that would have went, but there very much was criticism and concern in the moment.
Not for nothing, but the absolute best example of 'what could have been' based on these parameters is that the RFA rights for D Toews were traded to the Avs 3 days after we signed Krug. The return was a 2021 2nd and a 2022 2nd. Colorado finished 3rd in the NHL the season before the trade, so I think it is a safe bet that the Isles knew that they would be receiving mid-to-late 2nds in that package. That was a pure picks return and I think it is fair to assume that the Isles were simply aiming for the best package possible since they didn't get a specific player/prospect.We have no way of knowing what trades were available or pursued but did not become reality. It's not like teams talk about who they were willing or wanted to trade but could not seal the deal.....and for good reason. That's why the question "who should we have traded for" can't be answered unless the guy was traded to somebody, and even that scenario is not a sure thing.
That's fair but it was next to impossible to remake the team while the COVID cap was in effect. GMs planned their budgets assuming the cap would go up as usual, and most trades had to be salary neutral. I think the plan was always to give the old core one last chance last year and we saw how that turned out, but I don't know what dramatic changes Army could have made to guarantee a much different outcome.
Every trade and contract signing is a gamble and not every gamble can be a success. Armstrong has made some good moves and some not so good moves, but I think it's more fair to consider why he made those moves in the first place rather than simply focusing on the outcome. OK, people hate the Krug signing. So should Army have not signed anyone after Petro left? How do we know plan B would have worked out any better? People talk about getting a replacement for Bouwmeester as if guys like that become available all the time. Would fans have been ok trading a Snuggerud/Neighbours caliber prospect + in order to get that guy?
I just think in general things tend to balance out in the end. The consolation prize of having down years is a team can get better prospects. Let's say Army did manage to make some great moves to extend our window another couple years, but would it be worth it? If we had won another Cup, sure it would have been. But it's also possible that making desperate moves to keep the team on top would have hurt us more in the long term. Maybe we wouldn't have Dvorsky, Lindstein and Stenberg right now, or maybe our "retool/refocus/rebuild" would have been delayed a few years.
I'm not even sure having Petro on this team would really make a big enough difference. In the short term sure, but what if we still needed to rebuild with an aging Petro making almost $9 million with an NMC? We can play the hypothetical game all day but no one knows if those moves would have actually been any better in the long run. I'm more interested in what we should do now and going forward, but if people enjoy arguing about the same old decisions from years ago then I guess go ahead. I just don't get the point.
I think bigger issue (and you touch on it) is our failure to develop defensemen, particularly at nhl level. I blame MVR specifically, but that responsibility falls on Berube and army too. When Dunn and Walman and Miko all blossom after leaving, in way that they weren’t while here, that is the bigger issue to me.
Isn't that most people's definition of development?Is it a failure to develop? All 3 of those blossomed pretty quickly the vest next year. Mikkola struggled post TDL in NY, bit was great next year.
I don't think it was development. I think it was we didn't recognize what we had, and we were 't willing/able to give them the time and space to take the next step.
Isn't that most people's definition of development?
Those things are linked together and fall under development for me.When I think of development, I think more about coaching and skill development. Giving them playing time is obviously important to reinforce thise lessons and give repitition. But an undeveloped or underdeveloped player isn't going to blossom merely with an increases role. The players we gave up were developed, they were ready. We just didn't have/give them a role to seize
Those things are linked together and fall under development for me.
Proper development for me is understanding what their strengths and weaknesses are, when they are ready for a bigger role and when they aren't, knowing when they can push through their mistakes, and when they need to be pulled back to a lesser role.
I don't see us having different views of what is included in development is worth an argument. You have your view, I have mine.
I think bigger issue (and you touch on it) is our failure to develop defensemen, particularly at nhl level. I blame MVR specifically, but that responsibility falls on Berube and army too. When Dunn and Walman and Miko all blossom after leaving, in way that they weren’t while here, that is the bigger issue to me.
One other thing to consider at the time: we were up near the cap when Tolvanen was waived [because ... we've usually been up near the cap really early, with virtually no flexibility to make moves as a result and assignments to/from the minors have to be dollar-for-dollar in some way], so we didn't have room to just tack his salary on without clearing equal dollars (or more). If we'd have waived someone and they went unclaimed, we'd be stuck and have to assign someone to the minors to get back under; that would have meant clearing Tolvanen's salary + some more given the cap charge that would still apply.I don't disagree, but it does matter that Tolvanen went on waivers on December 11 while Kapanen was a waivers pickup less than a week before the deadline. ... The organization was in two very different places when those guys went through waivers so it isn't like both came available simultaneously and we just chose Kap over Tolvanen. Those were two completely independent decisions. It's fair to criticize the decision to pass on Tolvanen, but I don't think the eventual Kap claim is at all relevant to that decision.
This is an example (though there are likely much better ones) of why you don’t want to be pressed firmly up against the cap when you are not contending. Having flexibility isn’t the worst thing in the world.One other thing to consider at the time: we were up near the cap when Tolvanen was waived [because ... we've usually been up near the cap really early, with virtually no flexibility to make moves as a result and assignments to/from the minors have to be dollar-for-dollar in some way], so we didn't have room to just tack his salary on without clearing equal dollars (or more). If we'd have waived someone and they went unclaimed, we'd be stuck and have to assign someone to the minors to get back under; that would have meant clearing Tolvanen's salary + some more given the cap charge that would still apply.
Kapanen, we'd cleared cap space so we could claim him straight-up. That was a much easier move to make.
Yeah, or random trade opportunities that come up. Easier to make those deals when you can just take on those caps hits, as opposed to making it cap neutral. I think that's one of the reasons Army has basically said we won't be a cap team next season. Not that we are on a tight budget, but to take advantage of opportunities as the present themselves.This is an example (though there are likely much better ones) of why you don’t want to be pressed firmly up against the cap when you are not contending. Having flexibility isn’t the worst thing in the world.