Silver Booster
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Buppy last won the day on April 25

Buppy had the most liked content!

About Buppy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

11,258 profile views
  1. 2018-19

    If they keep up at the rate their going, I'd probably be more surprised to get them for less than $4M.
  2. The MANtha watch.....

    That may be true, but that means your standards should change to reflect that reality. Only 9 different centers have hit 80 points in the last 4 seasons. Only Crosby has done it more than once. By your standard, Crosby is the only consistent 1C in the league over the last 4 years. In today's game, high 60's makes you a pretty good 1C. Point-per-game/80+ puts you among the most elite.
  3. The MANtha watch.....

    Reality has a different standard, lol. In the last 4 full seasons, a listed center has hit 80 points only 12 times, and 4 of those were Crosby. An average of 21.5 per year hit 60, 64 hit 40. (And many of those may be centers playing on the wing on a higher line.) Your standard is something only the elite players at those levels will hit. That said, Nielsen maybe is more of a 3rd center at this point. But he's not really playing great. Slightly worse, point-wise, than he was last year (though he started pretty slow last year too). Better only relative to what you might expect, given the role.
  4. Rumors Thread

    As I very clearly explained earlier, that statement was made within the context of saying we would have to pay someone to take him. What I was arguing against was you very clearly taking that statement out of that context. "I can't see it happening without paying a team to take him..." is from the very same paragraph you quoted to start the argument. No backpedaling at all. But yeah, whatever. I see no point in going further.
  5. Rumors Thread

    But I do NOT believe "little to no teams would be interested in Ericsson". That is the entire point that I am trying to convey. That statement is only part of what I was saying: which is that we would have to pay someone to take him. Something you agree with. I wasn't saying that to say you were wrong, or contradict the idea that we could theoretically trade Ericsson, or suggest it was something you didn't already know. I mentioned it only as the reason why I think a buyout could be a better option, if it came down needing to get rid of E.
  6. Rumors Thread

    Wow. You genuinely do not understand context. The problem with taking just that part, is that it is only a part of the idea being expressed. Looking at just that sentence, independent of the rest of the post, changes the meaning. That sentence, and the two that followed, are the reasons why I say we would have to pay someone to take E. Not, as you are trying to imply, an assertion that we could not trade him. Teams aren't interested enough to take him without additional incentive, is the whole idea. Understand?
  7. Rumors Thread

    Logically, you have a point (though maybe overstating a bit the average rates) and I can understand why you might believe this; in practice you just hardly ever see trades like that. For whatever reason teams seem very reluctant to add players with term. Older players at least. The closer we get to the end of the deal, the more likely a deal would become, provided that injuries and further decline don't negate that value. But at the same time, the longer we wait, the more likely that 2nd part becomes true and also the benefit to is lessened as well. Waiting until the deadline next year doesn't help with signing/resigning anyone this summer. Considering the hypothetical need for cap space this summer is the sole impetus behind trading him or buying him out, it goes without saying that if we don't need the space (and most likely we wont) then we don't buy him out.
  8. Rumors Thread

    Holy s***. Do you not understand the concept of taking something out of context? Acknowledging that you're doing it doesn't make it ok. You have now said three times, just on this page, that you believe we would have to pay someone to take Ericsson. That is exactly what I was saying, if you look at the entire post rather than cherry-picking a single sentence. You actually agree with me on that. Don't apologize for insulting me, apologize for being completely wrong in your interpretation of what I was saying. Twisting my words, some might say. Apologize for that. The only thing we disagree on is whether giving up a mid-round pick/prospect is worse than a buyout. I think it could be, depending on the specific deal.
  9. Rumors Thread

    Oh, the irony. Accuse me of twisting your words while you ignore the rest of the very paragraph you're quoting. It would be an epic troll if you weren't serious. Made it big and bold for you. So there you go, I wasn't twisting your words at all, you just maybe didn't realize what you were saying. In the future, you should read more carefully and make an effort to understand someone before responding. Certainly before insulting someone's character.
  10. Rumors Thread

    Are you seriously trying to disagree with me saying we couldn't trade him without paying someone to take him by suggesting that we could pay someone to take him? Maybe paying a mid-round pick wouldn't "set us back". ~80% chance that player wouldn't be anything of note. But at the same time, a $1.4M cap hit three and four years down the road isn't likely to handicap us in any significant way either (not to mention that there probably isn't going to be any good reason to clear the cap short-term either). What's your plan in 20-21 that makes a little cap space worth more than a chance at drafting another Franzen/Nyquist/AA/etc.? If, and that's a big if, we have some pressing need for a couple extra million in cap space, paying someone to take E is probably not the best way to get it. Depending on the exact price, buying him out could be a better option.
  11. Rumors Thread

    Actually, E's "payday" was two years after we lost Lidstrom. While he is much better than fans give him credit for, I doubt it would have hurt to let him walk. Water under the bridge though; E isn't the reason we don't have better defensemen. Buyouts should be used to free up cap space for something better, and should only be used when the alternatives are worse. Buying out E could be a good option, depending on what we could do with the savings. More likely though all we could do is sign Green or Jack Johnson. and probably to a deal that hurts us even more long term. I think very few teams, if any, would be interested in E even at $2.25M with two years left. Very few, if any, recent examples of similar defensemen being traded with term. Significant injury history, plus a known chronic hip condition. I can't see it happening without paying a team to take him, or taking back something just as bad. The former could be worse than a buyout, and the latter makes it all pointless.
  12. Frk vs Pulkkinen

    First, to say Frk is a success after 16 games is somewhat premature. He's done well so far, but we'll see where he goes. Coincidentally, 16 games into the 15-16 season, Pulkkinen also had 5g, 8p (the same stat line as Frk), with similar usage, and pretty much everyone was calling him a failure. People just never liked Pulk, even before he had actually failed. Whether Frk can sustain his success (or improve further) will be determined by his ability to adapt and continue to develop, not by anything he already is. Pulk obviously didn't progress, hopefully Frk will. But the idea that Pulk was just innately bad or unsuited for the NHL or only successful in the AHL because it was easy (but apparently not as easy for anyone else) is ridiculous, as is the idea that Frk is certain to continue his success.
  13. Rumors Thread

    At this point I would have to say Nashville, but could easily turn to the Avs if they make good use of the picks. Could end up hilariously bad for Ottawa, and even at best it doesn't look like much of an improvement.
  14. 2017-18 Lines Thread

    Just put that together from the game reports on NHL.com.
  15. 2017-18 Lines Thread

    Fun facts, since I was bored and it's only 15 goals: Goals against w/Jensen on-ice, given in seconds from the start of his shift: 09, 12, 12, 23, 28, 41, 50, 54, 58, 64 Goals for: 19, 24, 28, 39, 54