I haven’t listened to it but I’ll say Ken is super upset about his trade deadline went. We should have resigned Marchy, we got worse, the front office sucks. Team ruined. Dark days ahead. Never will win another cup with these guys running the team.
EquityJack
It’s exactly what you think it would be.
UnhealthyCheesecake
Disclaimer: I haven’t listened to this but I’ve read some of Ken’s tweets and wanted to touch on them
A big point Ken seems to make is: “He’s the franchise leader of x, y, and z, so he has to stay”. I challenge said assertion with the idea that once you start doing that for one person, when does it end? How do you then move off of a player like Karlsson or Theodore should the situation arise when you can make an equal statement about them? Ken is effectively screaming into the void, because he’s a loyalty first guy covering a team whose entire philosophy is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In no uncertain terms, his line of reasoning would take us down the path of the Sharks, a team handing out loyalty contracts to every aging player because we absolutely have to keep the band together no matter the cost. Then what? We get to feel all warm and cozy inside when the aging players expectedly regress like all players do but because we were “loyal” it was the right thing to do? No.
3 Comments
I haven’t listened to it but I’ll say Ken is super upset about his trade deadline went. We should have resigned Marchy, we got worse, the front office sucks. Team ruined. Dark days ahead. Never will win another cup with these guys running the team.
It’s exactly what you think it would be.
Disclaimer: I haven’t listened to this but I’ve read some of Ken’s tweets and wanted to touch on them
A big point Ken seems to make is: “He’s the franchise leader of x, y, and z, so he has to stay”. I challenge said assertion with the idea that once you start doing that for one person, when does it end? How do you then move off of a player like Karlsson or Theodore should the situation arise when you can make an equal statement about them? Ken is effectively screaming into the void, because he’s a loyalty first guy covering a team whose entire philosophy is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In no uncertain terms, his line of reasoning would take us down the path of the Sharks, a team handing out loyalty contracts to every aging player because we absolutely have to keep the band together no matter the cost. Then what? We get to feel all warm and cozy inside when the aging players expectedly regress like all players do but because we were “loyal” it was the right thing to do? No.