Guest Crymson Report post Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) Kind of like your non-stop bitching about peoples ideas... Maybe you need to find a forum where NHL GM's share their thoughts and ideas because those always pan out. Hmm yes, my non-stop bitching about peoples` ideas? Find me a few places where I actually bitched about peoples` ideas. My general targets of vehemence are those which project doom and gloom--defensive pessimism--and, as mentioned, bring up problems without bringing up any possible solutions. To name a problem and not name a solution is akin to, say, "we need to harness the power of the sun." Ok, son--great idea, but how? Is it possible, with our available resources? What steps must be taken in order to get it done? Are you sure that it might not have some negative consequences? Edited February 18, 2007 by Crymson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theman19 47 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 The Canes needed more veteran presence in the locker room,I did not think they were effective on the ice.The younger guns,goaltending and Brind d'mour did all the on ice work. you probably ment to quote me but quoted lou instead. I watched the canes win last year with great intrest and have the stanley cup dvd at home (leave me alone i'm from nc) at any rate mark recchi scored some absoutly clutch goals last year to win some playoff games, not only that he set up a few as well. Weight not so much, but there would be no cup without mark recchi's speed and drive to the net for the canes. Especially watch that series against buffalo, he was relentless in that series and made a scoring chance everytime he was one the ice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scotzman 29 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 Hmm yes, my non-stop bitching about peoples` ideas? Find me a few places where I actually bitched about peoples` ideas. My general targets of vehemence are those which project doom and gloom--defensive pessimism--and, as mentioned, bring up problems without bringing up any possible solutions. To name a problem and not name a solution is akin to, say, "we need to harness the power of the sun." Ok, son--great idea, but how? Is it possible, with our available resources? What steps must be taken in order to get it done? Are you sure that it might not have some negative consequences? Are you an Engineer or just really bored? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
superstarsingh 23 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 we should of aquired george laraque this offseason, we should of made a trade to get a top 5 young prospect(i.e toews) to have a future franchise player Did you know that there is a guy named HENRIK ZETTERBERG on our team? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
betterREDthandead 58 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 Hmm yes, my non-stop bitching about peoples` ideas? Find me a few places where I actually bitched about peoples` ideas. My general targets of vehemence are those which project doom and gloom--defensive pessimism--and, as mentioned, bring up problems without bringing up any possible solutions. To name a problem and not name a solution is akin to, say, "we need to harness the power of the sun." Ok, son--great idea, but how? Is it possible, with our available resources? What steps must be taken in order to get it done? Are you sure that it might not have some negative consequences? I would love for people to actually have ideas. If someone says "I see so-and-so is in a contract year and playing for a crappy team, the Wings ought to make a run at him,", then GREAT. Then we can talk about how that guy would fit in, what it would take to get him, whether or not it's a workable idea, or point out why the original idea is wrong. All around, people learn something and it's a good discussion. Hell, even the space cadet idea of trading Lang and a prospect for Jonathan Toews, though completely out of left field, was something and it gives people a reason to discuss. When people say "we need more grit, get it done Kenny!" that leads to nothing except people going "yah we do!!!11" and another round of Kenny-bashing. And I'm not targeting the thread-starter here, there are so many people guilty of it it's not even funny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 Did you know that there is a guy named HENRIK ZETTERBERG on our team? Zetterberg isn't a FUTURE franchise player...he already IS a franchise player. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arin 0 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 Why dont you guys stop bickering and stay on topic? I think this guy is right on - we have enough veterans. I think we should be going for younger guys that we could begin building around. Guys like: Winchester, Clowe, Penner, Moen... They're note exactly the "Gritty Scoring Winger", but I would rather have a few of them on our bottum lines. Penner would be a nice pickup, too. He's young and Anaheim would probably want to have a few more veterans on their roster for the playoffs. What would you give for Penner?(Or think they would accept?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lou_Siffer 1 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 Why dont you guys stop bickering and stay on topic? I think this guy is right on - we have enough veterans. I think we should be going for younger guys that we could begin building around. Guys like: Winchester, Clowe, Penner, Moen... They're note exactly the "Gritty Scoring Winger", but I would rather have a few of them on our bottum lines. Penner would be a nice pickup, too. He's young and Anaheim would probably want to have a few more veterans on their roster for the playoffs. What would you give for Penner?(Or think they would accept?) Winchester is the only suggestion of yours thats realistic. Why the hell would Anaheim trade Dustin Penner?!!!! To a potential playoff opponent of all teams? He's a huge young guy with Bertuzzi like potential, he wouldnt go anywhere unless they were getting a star in return. Put it this way, Hudler and Flip combined doesnt even come close to the trade value Penner has. Moen is an important grit piece to their 3rd and 4th lines...he's exactly the kinda guy you want on those lines. So again, no point in trading him. Ryan Clowe is a fighter with 28 pts in 34 games...uh...definitely not coming here either! Dare i ask who the veterans off our team are that Anaheim would give Penner for? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hatcher#2 13 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 (edited) nevermind Edited February 18, 2007 by Hatcher#2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
superstarsingh 23 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 Zetterberg isn't a FUTURE franchise player...he already IS a franchise player. He is 26. He is the franchise and he should be for the next 7-10 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5 Report post Posted February 18, 2007 Why dont you guys stop bickering and stay on topic? I think this guy is right on - we have enough veterans. I think we should be going for younger guys that we could begin building around. Guys like: Winchester, Clowe, Penner, Moen... They're note exactly the "Gritty Scoring Winger", but I would rather have a few of them on our bottum lines. Penner would be a nice pickup, too. He's young and Anaheim would probably want to have a few more veterans on their roster for the playoffs. What would you give for Penner?(Or think they would accept?) I am hoping the Red Wing faithful can come up with some possible players that are young,fast,and abrasive,but do not have to be 'snipers". Anyone know much about Ryan Johnson from St. L ? He has impressed me with his speed,hands,and driving to the net? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
