DO I HAVE TO SAY IT?

Everyone else has had their shot at rationalizing the results of yesterday's trade deadline results, so why should I be left out. As a wanna be philosopher I'll point out that I am a big believer in and an advocate [i][b]Occam's razor:[/b][/i] The simplest explanation is the most probable one.

The simple fact is that Gainey tried to get Hossa in Montreal, but the price was too steep. From what I understand Gainey was not given the opportunity to speak with Hossa about a long term contract prior to making a bid, thus leaving him as no more than a sniper for hire as far as this trade deadline was concerned. With that said, my guess is that we offered Grabovski and a mediocre draft pick (say a second round pick in 2009) thus leaving the core of the current and future team intact.

As is the case with every UFA market and trade deadline since the introduction of the salary cap, it takes one overzealous and short-sighted GM to blow all other sensible offers out of the water. It’s reminiscent of attending an art auction with a rich drunk Texan who has more money than he knows what to do with, and is out-bidding you for the sake of bidding. Hair brained possum droppings like the rich Texan wouldn't know the concept of value if it hit him in the face with a 2 by 4 in the back alley.

[b]Bottom line is there is nothing Bob Gainey could have done about Ray Shero overpaying (and that’s an understatement) for a Hossa, even if he signs long term with the team[/b]

Anyone who believes overpaying is the only way to improve in the new NHL and doesn't see the inherent evil for the short, medium and long run for a team, need not look any further than our eternal rivals to the west. The Toronto Maple Leafs have continuously overpaid and overvalued their players, and never hesitated to mortgage their future for short term gains. Needless to say we all know how that worked out for them.

Tomorrow I’ll delve into the goaltender issue; mainly Huet’s trade, the return on the, and the Price era.