Dabura

Member
  • Content count

    12,373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    65

Dabura last won the day on February 12

Dabura had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Dabura

  • Rank
    HOT-N-READY®
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

17,405 profile views
  1. There's nothing unreasonable about it, but, at the same time, I can absolutely understand why Hanzal would be the far more attractive option for any number of GMs. We can compare point totals, but, at the end of the day, Hanzal is a big-bodied second-line centerman who can play tough minutes against top talent and hold his own. He's mean, he's a good playmaker, he's a great two-way player, he works well with speedy, creative wingers, he can play in all situations, and he can slot in as a 1C if need be. He's also a bit younger than Vanek. And, fair or not, he doesn't have Vanek's "reputation"/"baggage." It's entirely possible Hanzal becomes a force on what is a very good Wild team (probably the best NHL team he's ever played on). Vanek is extremely skilled and highly motivated, but he's not necessarily someone who a number of GMs look at and say, "This is the piece that could put us over the top." I think, for a lot of GMs, Hanzal was That Guy. (Still, I'll be disappointed if we don't get at least a 1st for Vanek.)
  2. And the more high picks you get, the more shots you get at landing that kind of talent. Not that cornerstone talent can't be found in later rounds, of course. But, point is, you want to give yourself the best odds you can. Getting some high picks in any given draft doesn't necessarily mean you're going to draft a single truly great player in that draft -- but, at this point, that path is pretty much our only way forward. We have to commit to it. While I love some of our young talent, we are in desperate need of at least two or three players who are even better than our best young players (Mantha, Larkin, Athanasiou, Mrazek). That's how far away we are from winning our next Cup, IMHO. Again, the draft is pretty much the only way we're getting that kind of talent, so...we've gotta draft, and we've gotta be aggressive about it.
  3. I love Jensen's game (most of all: his skating, mobility) and I definitely want a youth movement. Just sayin'. Jensen's only played in a few games at the NHL level and he's been pretty sheltered in terms of his responsibilities, so it's not entirely clear what we have in him. That's one of the reasons I like this deal -- it's a zero-risk "show me" contract.
  4. That would be Mike Green! But, yeah, I am super-ok with this deal. Good stuff.
  5. I'm hoping/guessing this means our big deals will be done by tomorrow night and that Holland and Blashill both know it. We'll see.
  6. To my eye, he's looked half a step too slow this season. I'm wondering if maybe he bulked up too much in the offseason and it's thrown off his game.
  7. I was hyping Sheahan's trade value before it was cool to hype Sheahan's trade value. Time to step up your game, professional rumormongers. #Gunning4YerJobz
  8. It's been rumored for a long time now that Shattenkirk ultimately wants to be a Ranger. Not that that necessarily means much (rumors and speculation being what they are), but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him traded to the Rangers. It could be a good long-term fit for both sides.
  9. Sheahan traded to Edmonton for McDavid. I think Edmonton won this trade.
  10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XeI9H2__gM #GetHyped
  11. (P.S. I didn't mean to hijack the thread, or pull it off on a tangent. The hypothetical Larkin-for-Trouba swap is just something I've been contemplating on and off for the past couple of weeks or so. I guess, more than anything, I'm wondering if people here are less sold on Larkin than they were back in, say, October.)
  12. Say the Jets ask for Larkin, straight up (i.e. no additional picks or prospects. A one-for-one swap.) So, we get a good young defenseman and we get to keep the pick. Do you pull the trigger? I'm not necessarily advocating. Just curious.