I'm beating this to death, so I'll just say this.
They are both speculation, but at least we know the player traded was a greater possibility. Seems more plausible that the Wings could have signed Erhoff rather than Chara right?
And when the Wings lose I can usually understand what happened, I see if there was a missed assignment on a goal, I look and see if there was a bad penalty, I see if our special teams was an issue, I'll consider many different situations that make up the hockey game. The one thing in common is I know exactly what plays happened, and who was responsible. I'm not speculating on something I'm not sure would of happened, I'm focusing on the events in game that did. Which in your analogy would be focusing on the player moves in the past seasons to see what we know happened, not speculating on the players that didn't get moved.
The way you and Crymson have constructed the argument, there is no possible answer anyone can give you that will satisfy you. So why have the discussion other than to get to shut people down and try to stop them from criticizing Holland?
Let's play this game. We'll go through every loss the Wings had last season. You guys tell me what they should have done differently to win, then I'll let you know if they would've won or not.
Get ready for one of these two answers:
1) That wouldn't have been enough because of (some hypothetical reasons I'll make up on the fly).
2) We'll never know because that's not what they did. It could've made them lose even worse.
- esteef likes this