And I clearly stated that the Wings had a balanced approach.June 2 2004 at 10:28 AM
|HR (no login)|
from IP address 188.8.131.52
Response to Well then, don't run away this time...
So nothing in your facts disputes that opinion, or my opinion that the Wings did not "buy the Cup".
You claim that Hasek and Chelios were "rape" trades. First off, the Hawks practically booted Chelios out the door. I watched a "Behind the Glory" documentary about Chelios, and it was crystal clear that he didn't want to leave Chicago, and that the Hawks management gave him no (realistic) choice. Where did you get your facts to support that opinion? The same load of crap that led you to believe that Hull and Robitaille were "stolen"? Hasek is a different matter, and while I agree that players shouldn't demand to be traded to a specific team, Hasek was no different than Bourque in that both of them were Hall of Fame players who deserved to play for a Stanley Cup contender. The Sabres didn't have to trade Hasek to Detroit. Detroit didn't have to offer Hasek a contract. That would be the definition of a "rape" trade.
So half of the Wings were acquired, and half were either drafted or acquired through trade. That doesn't add up to "buying the Cup", which has been my argument all along.
Yet you continue to confuse me with Octo.