kipwinger

Well played.

And then fornicating with Danica Patrick on the back of a dune buggy.

Russian Sniper > German Sniper > American Sniper

Coaches tend to overlook a lot of deficiencies when you score a bunch of goals. If Alex Ovechkin, or any player putting up Ovechkin level points, was on our team, Mike Babcock would accept the offense and stay oddly quiet about all the rest. Just like he's done with Franzen for years. You don't ever hear Babs calling Mule out do you? Wanna know why? Because he needed the goals.

Well I'll be damned. And he has a (limited) NTC. That could hurt his value, and make him a little bit easier for a team like us to acquire. This really surprises me. They must have TONS of faith in Carlson and Niskanen to trade Green before a playoff run.

You're right, I completely misread those stats when I looked them up. Nevertheless, I maintain my argument, I'd just have to find a different example. Fedorov, off the top of my head.

You're right. If Washington weren't going to make the playoffs Green would cost less because he's on an expiring contract. I think the reason we're all saying he'd cost a lot is because they ARE going to make the playoffs and they'll need him. So, in order to pry him away, you'd have to give a MASSIVE overpayment.

I'm definitely not suggesting that those guys' production was an aberration or anything. Clearly they're excellent players. I'm just saying that anytime someone focuses on one stat over the other, they are (perhaps inadvertently) creating a bias in favor of one characteristic over another. In this case, dynamism over durability/consistency. It's a little bit like debating who's the better player, Pat Lafontaine: 1013 points in 865 games Joe Sakic: 1016 pts. in 1375 The points are almost the same. And clearly Lafontaine was more likely to score a point during any given game (higher ppg). So the question is, despite the fact that he's less likely to score at any given time, is there some benefit to having Sakic on the ice for an additional 510 games? Is his presence in 510 games, even when not scoring, more than enough to make up for the difference in ppg totals? To me the answer is "yes". He's good enough that his presence in the extra games, all by itself, makes him more valuable. He makes your entire team better just by showing up, even when not scoring.

As I said in the Ovechkin thread about two different players, durability counts for a lot in this sport. Green is the more dynamic offensive player, and Yandle is less dynamic but much more durable. As good as Green's point per game totals are, I'd rather have a guy with slightly less offensive ability, but who's a threat every shift every night for 82 games a year. That's Yandle. To me he's the better player because he plays at a consistently high level night in and night out. But like others have said, I think Green's the better fit for this team (if signed in free agency). Because with Washington's turnaround this season, he's not getting traded for anything less than a substantial overpayment.

I get your point, and I get why you're mentioning it. But I tend to take another view. It's the same argument as the Crosby vs. Ovechkin debate. Those on Crosby's side always point out point per game, while Ovechkin supporters look at total points. I tend to think that PPG is overrated in these arguments because it penalizes one player for being durable. Sure, Ovechkin isn't as dynamic a point producer as Crosby, but there's something to be said for his being a scoring threat night in and night out for his whole career. PPG stats skew the conversation in favor of dynamism, while point totals (or season averages) skew in favor of durability and consistency. IMO the latter is more important over an 82 game season, and a long career. Come to think about it, this is the same argument which got Peter Forsberg into the Hall of Fame, and probably will get Eric Lindros in one day too.

If I was the front office of some other team in the Blues division, I'd hire Sean Avery as the Senior Adviser to my GM and watch the sparks fly.

Oh right, I forgot he was a Bruin. The big, bad, bruiny, bear, connection. Maybe we should bring Thomas Kaberle back from Europe. Wasn't he a bearish, brawny, Bruin at one time too?

A 29 year old Mike Green is too old to help us, but a 31 year old Johnny Boychuk isn't? Do you have a fever?

Having a right shot on that bottom pair directly contributed to Smith's goal. Marchenko made a play at the line to keep the puck in, and chipped in in deep on his forehand (something a lefty couldn't do) to Jurco who found Smith in good position for the one timer (something he couldn't have done if he'd been on the other side). Good work by all involved, but having the right/left pair out there was a huge key to that goal.

I don't disagree with your points. But I will say that neither Smith nor Dekeyser are prospects.

Fair enough. I just thought I missed a tweet or something. The news was coming fast and furious for a minute.

Am I missing something? Did he get picked up off waivers already? How did we lose Lashoff?

Holland has consistently refused to trade highly touted prospects and high draft picks. He's repeated his mantra of "building from within" soooo often that I've wanted to punch him. Presumably he has this point of view because he believes it's the right way to build and team. And what do you know, it's paying off. Not really sure how you can be critical of him right now? And if the roster management (and it's current successes) aren't attributable to Holland, who does get the credit? Luck? Babcock? Dan Cleary?

I will say this. Good on Brian Lashoff. I'm really glad that guy is a million dollars richer. Sure he was a plug. But he did EXACTLY what he was signed to do, and what was expected of him. Kudos buddy.

I'm not really sure why we'd trade and NHL ready righty to get an NHL righty. My guess is, they want to see if Marchenko is good enough to hold his own on the third pair if they move one or two of the lefties who are higher up in the depth chart. I'm thinking of Quincey, Smith, or Ouellet are the more likely trade scenarios.

Holy s***! You know what this means? We've finally got a right shot defenseman! Also, this means Smith will get to play his natural side. That should be a good way to boost his production.

Wait, what? I'm confused. So, is Lashoff waived or not? I think he's saying that Lashoff is waived AND Ouellet went down for Marchenko, but I don't know.

Haha, it was a shorty too. Hilarious.

You're right, but I think he's probably not taking it for granted that Cleary is going to retire. You are...probably correctly.

To be fair, I do think we need to have a little bit more consistency in our efforts against good teams. However, if your assessment is accurate, then it sounds like we had a good effort...and Mrazek just had a bad night. If you've got to take a loss, that's the best kind to take.