They both made bold moves... I'm not saying LA only won because of that. They made trades that made their top 6 better, something that we need to do. And Philly will be rewarded soon, just wait and see.
And I think you are missing my point, chum.
What I'm suggesting here is that LA's "bold moves" paid off because of an outside factor, in this case that Quick played phenomenally well. Without Quick, LA's moves don't look as bright, do they? The Kings were not showing any great signs of improvement from the acquisition of Richards. Carter did contribute 6 goals in the regular season and 8 goals in the playoffs, as did Kopitar and Brown. Doughty, Williams and even Penner each had pretty good playoffs, and none of them would have had 20 games to get all of those points if Quick hadn't played the way he did.
Quick was the deciding factor in these past playoffs, and without him LA doesn't make it make it past the second round.
And while we're at it, Sutter was pretty important too, right? Both of these guys (Quick and Sutter) were by far more important to LA's success than Richards and/or Carter.
Are you seriously saying that we don't need to make any moves?
You are seriously using "seriously" a lot... seriously.
How do you jump to the conclusion that I believe the Canucks do not "...need to make any moves" from my previous post? Not once did I mention Vancouver's situation. My comments were restricted to La's situation and that of the Flyers' which made for a nice compare and contrast in that both of the big names that the Flyers dumped turned up in LA.
I do suggest that the Canucks do not/did not have the same amount of quality assets who were disposable to their team as LA. Were the Canucks to make "bold moves", just who could they have traded at last season's deadline?
Schneider? Edler? Hodgson? Booth? Burrows? Higgins? Hansen? Raymond? Ballard? Tanev? Picks? Other prospects?
These are the guys who would have been the likely candidates to be moved, and no, I have not included anybody with a NTC/NMC on that list, and do remember to leave all 20/20 observations as the quality of their play over the last part of the season and playoffs at the door.
I see the general feeling on these forums as being that (from the above list) only Schneider or Edler could serve as the center piece of a significant trade. The team needs were (and perhaps still are), a top-6 right winger, another top-4 d-man and perhaps a 3rd line center.
If the Canucks traded Edler, they haven't done anything to fill that gap on defence, unless this trade was for some "superstar" d-man, and just who would be giving up a guy like that if their team had a shot at the playoffs? And if they didn't, what kind of a price would they want in addition to Schneider or Edler? Colombus got Johnson and a conditional 1st for Carter, and that trade was pretty close to being a contract/salary dump by Colombus. If the Canucks did pick up a top-6 winger, how much better off would the team be without Edler on defense and/or without Schneider backing up Luongo in case of issues in goal? And no, I do not believe that Hodgson and a 1st gets the Canucks a player like Richards or Carter.
This is where my contention enters, that the Canucks didn't have the "disposable" parts which LA had available to trade, and the reason for this was because of the Canucks' better record for the past decade.
Edited by Gollumpus, 16 September 2012 - 04:08 AM.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.