Then why did you ask people to do exactly that, to make up trades that were hypothetical and could never know for sure that they could've happened?
That's why it's ludicrous to criticize Holland on a situation that "you" don't know existed. The burden of proof is on you guys who are saying he should have done something, and yet you can't come up with a reasonable player that would fix the problem. How do you hold someone accountable for messing up a situation that never existed? Rational people have evidence that they argue for, I'm not shooting down anything, if you think Carle, Erhoff, Burns etc. are legitimate top pairing defneseman and would fit into the Red Wings system and are worth commiting long term to, that's your opinion, they are good hockey players, I don't necessarily agree that they would be good fits, but at least you bring up reasonable situations that we "know" Holland could have done and can discuss how the moves would have put the Red Wings in a better place right now and in the future.
Arguing what-if's of trades that actually happened is bad enough, arguing non-existant what-ifs trades is an even larger assumption that I personally don't see the rational logic behind.
Fact is we don't know what Holland could have done, but I'd rather focus on the trades and players we know have moved teams, and know without doubt Holland could have landed, rather then making up trade scenarios that might have never been a possibility. If that's too much to ask, then I guess I'll let people bash Holland for not trading for Chara, Karlsson, Doughty etc. I know I'd rather talk about situations that actually happened, and see if there are lessons to be learned in the past, rather then making up our own history and debate about things that we aren't sure were ever a possibility.
And how could we possibly know without a doubt the players Holland could have landed, unless he actually successfully brought them here?
Holland is among if not the best GM in the league. I'm not unhappy because I think he's crappy at his job. I'm unhappy because I expect more of him. And I'm not talking about not getting Suter or Nash. He basically painted himself into a corner this offseason and is looking very un-Holland like having to chase after all these big free agents. Lidstrom's retirement was a known event. Stuart going back to California was a known event. I would've hoped he'd have a better transition plan. And I can think that without having to prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt what that transition plan could've been. Because no matter what I say, it didn't happen, so it's pretty easy for you to shoot down.
You say the burden of proof is on us, but then in the same post you also say you don't see the logic behind arguing hypothetical trades either? So what is it you expect, other than for people not to complain?
Your argument is essentially trying to quell criticism and debate here, which is the problem I have with it. I don't agree with a lot of the Holland bashing here, but we're not in a court of law we're on a fan forum. People are allowed to express their opinions, even without irrefutable evidence.
- esteef likes this