kipwinger

Where are you getting this 1st + Prospect from? You keep saying it, but every other place I've looked has said a 2nd and a prospect.

All twenty of them?

Listening to Mickey Redmond try to figure out would be gold.

Haha, I just signed up for an account over there so that I could troll Malik via my online alter-alter-ego...TheGlistening. It should be good for a laugh once he sees it. On the record: I can't stand George Malik. http://kuklaskorner.com/tmr/comments/report-sabres-wanted-larkin-and-mantha-for-myers

Aaaaaaaand Bob McKenzie denies the rumor after three consecutive idiots (Bryan Yates, Clark Rasmussen, and George Malik) ran with the rumor as if it were true. Malik even going as far as to vouch for the credibility of Yakes, who originated the rumor. Cautionary Lesson LGW: Next time you find yourself about to post "Holland didn't land player X because the reported asking price was...," remember, those "reported asking prices" are almost always wrong, inflated, and made up by amateur jackasses (bloggers/podcasters).

I did. It was terrible. The bullying was relentless. I was also bullied by pot heads, horses, the ocean, and Game of Thrones. You can tell because I don't like any of those things either.

Is there anybody who wouldn't?

My bad. If I'd known you were so committed to the topic I would have kept talking about it, so that you wouldn't have to bring it up in a snarky post a day later.

A quick perusal of Bob McKenzie's twitter yields no mention of any of this. It's just some podcast dummy making things up. He's also a flagrantly partisan Wings fan. When the guy attributes things to McKenzie elsewhere on his twitter, he links it to McKenzie's actually twitter account. No link this time, despite the attribution. So apparently we're supposed to believe this yayhoo actually spoke to Bob Mckenzie in person, or via phone, and got this information. It's the equivalent of George Malik claiming Bob McKenzie told him some information about a trade. Lol.

I would laugh that offer off the phone...because I'm both.

I guess this is as good a place as any to link this Mike McKee article. According to the article, his 2 points in 24 games, and one penalty per game average, is apparently "proving wrong" the people who doubted he could become a productive player for Western. Lol. Yet more proof that really huge guys can mesmerize idiots. https://twitter.com/Hope_Smoke/status/456178678875975682

You're right, but it does sort of insinuate that Holland was "thinking about it" instead of laughing him off the phone.

McGuire reported the Nash thing if I recall correctly. And it was speculated that it included Filppula. But nothing explicit ever came out. But there was a rumor that actually mentioned Nyquist and Tatar, and if I'm remembering right, Bob McKenzie was the originator of that one. Edit: Here's the source of the Bouwmeester thing. Just like this newest Meyers rumor, it's someone saying that someone else said something. Or, in other words, it's bulls***. https://twitter.com/Hope_Smoke/status/456178678875975682

I don't believe this for a single second. It seem eerily familiar to the time that "Bob McKenzie" reported that Holland offered Nyquist AND Tatar for Jay Bouwmeester. Which was, and is, total bulls***.

Did you guys and gals know that Pierre McGuire has one of Scotty Bowman's assistant coaches in Pittsburgh?

Is it just me, or does Tony Romo have beady little rat eyes?

No I don't. Nothing in his career suggests otherwise, including his "super good" season last year where he put up...wait for it...nearly identical production (with more minutes) than he's putting up this year (with less). And, if the EVIDENCE I've provided over and over and over to discredit your asinine opinion are any indication, if he was forced to start in the defensive zone as much as those guys he'd almost certainly score MUCH LESS. Of course, I came to that conclusion using fancy stats that you admittedly don't understand. Clearly not as good a way to draw conclusions as the reliable old eyeball test. My eyeball tests tells me that Luke Glendening is on the cusp of a offensive breakout. WOO HOO! It's an opinion. It can't be baseless or inaccurate...cuz it's subjective!

First of all, I understand analytics just fine. Don't be insulting just because you're frustrated. You've never, EVER, heard me make a case by relying on "the eyeball test". Wanna know why? Because I understand stats. Secondly, your proof that he's "good" is a link to older, less relevant, stats from a season in which our other defensemen were decimated by injury? Stats that are not at all consistent with the seasons before or after them? If I was the kind of guy who understand stats (and what do you know, I am) I'd say that those are probably an outlier. Third, your "preference" doesn't matter at all when trying to objectively make a case for a guy. So far Brendan Smith is EXACTLY where he should be. Which is fifth on our depth chart.

That wasn't your original argument. You're changing your tune. You said he was better than Ericsson AND Quincey. He's not. At all.

1. Nobody said he was getting paid like a first pair guy. Nobody said he was single handedly costing us games. Nobody said he's dragging us down. I said he was a third pairing defenseman with upside. Someone else said he was better than two of our top four defenseman. The evidence doesn't back that up. 2. Ok I'll bite. What's the case for him being good?

Just for funsies I looked up Brendan's "fancy stats" once you adjust for zone starts (taking away his sheltering), and it's not pretty. Here's a taste... Zone start adjusted Corsi and Fenwick: Ericsson...57 and 84 respectively. Quincey...62 and 110 respectively. Smith...39 and 64 respectively. Ouch. Looks like "fancy stats" won't be your refuge after all. Sooo should I keep going with this or did you guys want to just eat your crow now? Note: As with the zone starts, you've got to follow the link and look up each player respectively. Have fun. http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/players.php

Jesus Christ...since you two brought it up Corsi stats (5 on 5)... http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5&pos=defense&minutes=50&teamid=11&type=individual&sort=icorsi&sortdir=DESC Fenwick (5 on 5)... http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5&pos=defense&minutes=50&teamid=11&type=individual&sort=ifenwick&sortdir=DESC Offensive Zone Starts (5 on 5) : http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=1560 Ericsson: 31% Kronwall: 32% Dekeyser 32% Quincey: 34% Smith: 40% Note: On the zone starts, you have to follow the link and then look up each player individually since they don't have them all in the same spot. Fancy enough for you, or no? Let me guess, you guys were probably talking about some other fancy stats or something right? How much more absurd does this need to get? Brendan Smith is NOT a top defenseman on this team. Get over it.

How is dumping three of your top six forward and one of your top four defenders not a proper rebuild? Moving Kessel, Kadri, Santorelli, and Gardiner is a significant tear down. You don't literally have to get rid of EVERYONE in order to consider it a rebuild.

Nah. He's too slow. It doesn't fit with our team dynamic. Plus, between Dats, Z, Kronwall, Ericsson, Helm, Abby, Miller, Quincey, etc. we've got plenty of playoff experience and leadership.

I've provided his stats compared to our other defensemen over and over and over again. Even Krsmith17 will acknowledge that much, which is why he says "I know, I know...stats". If you want to see them, look them up.