Sunday, October 16, 2005
Matt's Cut: 0%
Interesting to read Eric Francis in the Calgary Sun this morning. He breaks down the turnover on the Flames roster since the '04 playoff run by matching up individual departed players with new additions, and evaluating whether each change is an upgrade or otherwise.
What a great idea -- why didn't I think of that?
Compare and contrast, if you like. Only time will tell how the (relatively few) differences in our assessments pan out. If I were to criticize Francis' article, I would tell him that it would have been better if he had evaluated all the changes based on hockey merit only, or even any other consistent criteria. It's rather dishonest (intellectually) to call Change X a hockey upgrade, then look at Change Y and say, "well, the old guy was too expensive, so this was the right move". It undercuts the entire premise -- the question "Is GM Sutter doing his job?" is not identical to "Is the roster better than last season?". Francis seems to want to answer the first question in the affirmative; that's fine, but what fans care about is the answer to the second.
What a great idea -- why didn't I think of that?
Compare and contrast, if you like. Only time will tell how the (relatively few) differences in our assessments pan out. If I were to criticize Francis' article, I would tell him that it would have been better if he had evaluated all the changes based on hockey merit only, or even any other consistent criteria. It's rather dishonest (intellectually) to call Change X a hockey upgrade, then look at Change Y and say, "well, the old guy was too expensive, so this was the right move". It undercuts the entire premise -- the question "Is GM Sutter doing his job?" is not identical to "Is the roster better than last season?". Francis seems to want to answer the first question in the affirmative; that's fine, but what fans care about is the answer to the second.
# posted by Matt @ 12:21 pm 
