- Jan 3, 2012
- 14,584
- 12,525
I don't know if this article deserves dignifying with its' own thread, but I figured the "news article" tag exists to be used.
The clown, uh, I mean author of this piece gives the following lame reasons we should trade Hall.
1. 6-5 with Hall. So what, our offense LOOKS better IMO, but we did get shut out the last 2 games, so maybe I need glasses. The author does mention we've also been without Kuemper during Hall's AZ tenure, it could be that we are letting in too many goals?
2. Hall is unlikely to sign in AZ.
....Reasons given:
.....a. Team hasn’t spent to the cap (in the past) to be as competitive as possible. Sometimes we have, and we have a new owner with deeper pockets now, so that argument is bunk.
.....b. Isn’t poised to be a powerhouse in the near future. How do you become a powerhouse without signing good players? You could draft #1 every year (never-mind...see Edmonton)
.....c. Plays in a market that isn’t considered to be one of the more desirable locations. Don’t know if he means living in the valley sucks (it doesn’t), or we aren’t a hockey market (neither is/was LA, Vegas, San Jose, Tampa, Nashville, etc)
…..d. The best, best, best thing you can do for your franchise is to acquire high draft picks or prospects. We tried that. You can’t build a Cup winner through the draft alone.
The final argument is that if this is not a “win the Cup” year then we should trade our most valuable player for picks and prospects. I don’t think we have a chance at the Cup this year, but to build a winning franchise you need to start somewhere (make the playoffs, win a round, etc.), and you also need to demonstrate to your fans and other FAs that you are serious about winning. Signing Hall would send a huge signal to all stakeholders and potential signings that AZ is here to win.
Bourne Thoughts: Why Arizona should consider trading Taylor...