ezcreepin
Registered User
- Dec 5, 2016
- 2,693
- 2,443
The only other argument you have is to say that the Blues should have traded for either Martinez or Skjei, which there might be merit there. If you want to improve the left side, you could've traded a prospect or another pick to get Martinez since you gave up a 2nd for Scandella. I'm not sure what Doug thought about the construction at that time, but Skjei was had for a 1st, so I guess we could've done that if we thought we had good odds to win again.The bolded is false. Logical thinking involves "logically, we want to contend for the championship, how do we get players that help us do that." You are defining "logic" as "we have to do SOMETHING" and my entire point is that people who think "we have to do SOMETHING" are so wretchedly inept in their hockey judgment that it crippled the franchise. You saying that you would have done the same thing is not an argument that it's logical. It's a confession that you would have been forced into equally bad judgment. "In no way would I have held my mud either."
My point is that Armstrong obviously had a plan with the acquisition of Faulk. Whether it was trade Parayko or let Petro walk, there was no world where you have a right side of Petro, Parayko, and Faulk, especially after Bouw had to retire. You had to put someone on the left who could do at least half the job that Bouw did (Army thought Scandella), and you had to replace offense left by Petro (or in another world Parayko or Faulk). That only leaves one defenseman who can reasonably put up 40 points and play in a top 4 role, which was Krug. Aside from a random trade we can't think of right now, that is the logic that is inferred just based on all the information we know right now.