So basically it boils down to speculation.... you hate the trade and won't approach it with an open mind, which is fine.
Claiming that my mind is closed because I don't find your arguments (or any of the arguments presented thus far by others) compelling is a bit underhanded, don't you think? It's not like the positions you guys have been taking are bastions of unassailable fact and logic.
Oshie isn't a martyr. Your assuming what Oshie said is what everyone else is thinking. Which is just like me assuming Oshie asked for a trade (those things don't have to be made public). You can still be a well liked guy but a detriment to the team if your not on board with anyone else
I'm not stating it as a fact...there was an important set of conditionals in there.
Its main purpose is to illustrate some of the tenuous suppositions and assumptions that this particular argument supporting the trade rests on. Arguing that the Brouwer/Oshie trade turned around the locker room (or might turn it around in the playoffs) and is thus a net positive for team performance assumes: 1) There was a significant locker room problem (presumably with Oshie either being the main or only antagonist). 2) That problem significantly affected the team's performance on the ice. 3) Swapping the two players "cured" whatever locker room problem there was. 4) That translates (or might translate) to improved team performance that outweighs whatever negative there is from downgrading from Oshie to Brouwer, thus ending up as a net positive for the team.
We have no idea if #1 is true. Even if it was, we have no tangible proof or evidence that #2 is true. Even if it was, we can't prove that #3 is true because that's not the only roster change that was made. Even if we assume that it is, or that it's a "significant" contributor, there's no quantifiable way to weigh it against #4.
Do you not see the problem with this? People have set up a potential justification (or rationalization) that's unassailable now because it's completely speculative, and that can be viewed/claimed as "validated" by its proponents simply by the Blues winning a playoff series. ("Logic" there being the team wasn't good enough to win with Oshie but it won with Brouwer, thus this team with Brouwer > this team with Oshie and #4 must be true, ergo the underlying assumptions are true as well.)
The time to point out the logical inconsistencies and generally poor nature of this argument is now, before whatever outcome happens confounds the issue. Good results don't justify bad processes in real life, but they commonly do on the internet.
You can try and paint this to be the dagger that that killed the Blues all you want but removing Oshie and replacing him with Brouwer hasn't tanked the team, did it improve the team? No...not really but for the playoffs it doesn't matter. We can all agree the perceived value was trash but until something surfaces that a better deal was available, it's just an endless debate.
When have I ever said that the Blues are dead? What's more, if you've been paying attention to me at all, you know that I think the coach (as possibly GM) is the biggest thing holding this team back...not the talent on the roster.
I've never tried to paint this trade as anything other than what it is...a talent downgrade on the roster, without enough value in futures compensation to justify the downgrade. I'll stop arguing that POV when people stop proposing (what I perceive to be bad) arguments that attempt to justify the move.
