Written by Arik Knapp
|
19 March 2010
So because I'm out of commission for the day/weekend (surgery), I'm scheduling my own answers to the Questions of Interest and Intrigue to post today. Next week you'll likely see the answers from Hayley, the Managing Editor of Matchsticks and Gasoline, and near the end of the week, hopefully RossCreek of FlamesNation. In the meantime, you're stuck with little ol' me. On a side note, there's big things coming from the 4th Line Blog. Primarily joining Bloguin. Look for this to start affecting the site (in a good way) over the next couple weeks.
1.) Starting with the draft last year, and given what we knew at the time, would you have traded for Bouwmeester’s rights and signed him?
Yes, absolutely. I know we complain and complain about Bouwmeester, how he doesn't score, and so on, but right now he is far and away the best defenseman we have. He plays just under 30 minutes a night against the toughest competition. And c'mon, he's playing with Staios. We're putting our best defensive defenceman with our worst defenceman period.
However, since I would've signed Bouwmeester, I also probably would've traded away Phaneuf in the offseason, before his stock dropped. But see question number 3 for more on that.
2.) How would you have drafted? Would you trade down so you could sign Brent Sutter? Or would you stick at the higher position and draft Schroeder?
Okay, I liked Brent Sutter's time in New Jersey. He was a solid coach there. Layoff-Lou didn't even fire him. But he worked with Zach Parise, who is one of the top 3 players in the league (some days I'd even put him higher than Crosby, but that's another post for another day). His top line was young, capable of making a difference, and so on. So while I hardly think he was the worst choice (does anyone else still find the Marc Crawford hiring hilarious?), there was definitely one better.
Let's look at what we had and what we needed at the time.
1.) Had: an aging not very offensively strong team with one solid offensive prospect (Backlund)
2.) Needed: A coach who can drive an aging team and get them to score goals. Also more solid offensive prospects.
Dave Tippet was available (for some moronic reason) and so was Jordan Schroeder. These would've been excellent choices. But Sutter isn't known for those. Instead we got (another) defensive prospect from Europe.
3.) Would you have targeted anyone else in the offseason, or attempted to trade anyone else in the offseason?
I would've gotten rid of Phaneuf in the offseason, bundled with Sex Panther if possible. This would have freed up enough space to a) resign Cammalleri (or a similar difference maker) b) sign a GOOD backup goalie (Biron, perhaps?) and c) add a significant piece at the trade deadline
4.) Would you still make the Phaneuf trade? If no, would you trade him for something else? Would you trade him earlier or later or in the season?
Like I said, I would've traded him in the offseason as I could've hopefully gotten a much better return. But barring that happening, the Phaneuf trade was the only thing Sutter's done this year I agree with 100%. We got back 2 scoring forwards, a defenceman who actually plays with his body, and, well, Jamal Mayers. I'd pull the trigger on this trade any day of the week.
5.) If the Flames had a 9 game losing streak, what ritual would you perform to regain the favor of the hockey gods?
I'd make a sacrifice to the Lord of Hockey by lighting the puck that Gelinas "didn't" score with on fire at center ice. Then I'd do a naked raindance outside of the Sutters farm until he refused to come out ever again for fear of my wang shaming his.
6.) Would you have been a buyer or seller at the trade deadline this year (given that the performance up til that point was exactly the same)?
Seller. Absolutely. No prospects, no picks, no real playoff chances, we needed to sell. The team is not built to be competitive for a good long while. Buying made that worse.
7.) What is the best sort of puppy?
That sort.
Okay, maybe I just wanted an excuse to show puppy photos. Shut up.
