I'm confused at some of their reasoning behind selecting their winners and losers.
Detroit Red Wings - This article states is dissecting the moves made yesterday. The Wings did not make any moves yesterday, and did not improve thus there is no way that their team can be classified a "winner". Were they off-season winners, sure. They landed arguably the best UFA out there in Hossa. Does it have anything to do with the trade deadline.......no. Also, the Red Wings inconsistent goaltending continues to be the only chink in the armor of an otherwise fantastic team, something that was not addressed yesterday.
Florida Panthers - Classified as "winner" when their biggest move was.....not trading J-Bo. How is that a "winning" move, especially when the teams around them improved Rangers, Flyers, Rangers and Pens (which was the same reasoning that they used to declare the Caps as "losers")?
They considered NJ as a team that improved yesterday (although they made their play for Havelid a few days before, but whatever), and consider Montreal as a "loser" when they picked up Schneider, who has been fantastic on the PP for them. The author seems to have very different takes on almost the exact same situation - the pickup of a veteran D.
Using the same logic used for Detroit, and Florida, the Canucks should be winners yesterday for picking up Mats Sundin in December, and not trading impending UFA Mattias Ohlund (doesn't make sense to me, but it's the author's logic). Do I think the Canucks were winners.......of course not. But they made their "deadline-deal" in December.
I don't agree with them considering LA a loser for not trading Ersberg, and citing a goalie logjam as the reason. Look at Price in Montreal, everyone thought that he was going to be fantastic....now he's warming the bench while Halak is leading Montreal. Whose to say that exact same situation will not happen to Jonathon Quick next year?
