• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

HockeytownRules19

Athanasiou Signed 1 year $1.4 mil

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

To an extent I guess. But at some point, teams do usually plan to rebuild (suck). I think Toronto planned to suck, which looks to be panning out quite well for them. It's yet to be determined whether or not that plan will result in a Cup (I hope not...)I think the key is to plan to suck in the right year. Edmonton bottomed out for several years, but it wasn't until they landed McDavid (a true generational talent) that they were finally able to start to turn things around. The Leafs were fortunate that they landed Matthews (who also looks to be an elite talent) early in their suckage...

Toronto only planned to suck after a long stint of entirely accidental sucking, and proof that their star players didn't complement each other anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lomekian said:

Toronto only planned to suck after a long stint of entirely accidental sucking, and proof that their star players didn't complement each other anyway.

Yup, which is precisely what I said... "at some point" teams choose to suck. The Leafs chose to be all in on the suckage for the season before the Matthews / Laine draft. It worked quite well for them. Guaranteed there will be teams that will choose to suck this season for the Dahlin / Svechnikov draft. Will one of those teams be the Red Wings? Not with Holland in charge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toronto didn't really choose to suck. They sucked for almost a decade and then Babcock got there and got rid of a bunch of veterans, Phaneuf and Kessel and tanked all within 1 years time.  Then they happened to get lucky by getting the first round pick. Which obviously landed them Mathews. If they got unlucky they wouldn't have gotten Mathews and likely would have still been eliminated from the playoffs this past year just like all the previous years. 

Also Toronto still isn't good. They're okay. But likely will become good. But good enough to win the Stanley Cup? Probably not with the way Pittsbugh is looking. And once McDavid hits his prime I doubt a combined Mathews, Marner or Nylander could out win him. 

Same goes for Edmonton. They never planned on sucking in 2015. They sucked, simply because they sucked just as they did in the previous years. And they happened to win the draft lottery and jumped from 3rd pick to 1st pick and got McDavid. We easily could be talking about Buffalo instead of Edmonton today. But we aren't because there was a lottery. There is no genius managing involved in this. 

Toronto and Edmonton went through a decade of bad luck and all it took was one year of good luck. Who the hell wants to wait that long. 

And that's just two teams. Buffalo, Carolina are still trying to get "lucky" and it's been about a decade for them too. 

New Jersey has been on trying  to get lucky for about 5 years now, woopty doo they finally got a 1st pick OUT OF SHEER LUCK. Their prize is Hischier (ehhh). They weren't even trying to rebuild they just got screwed by Kovalchuck, Parise leaving lol. They did aquire a crap ton of picks over the years. Nothing different from what Holland is doing. 

I think if it's around February and the prospects of making the playoffs are dim, then sure by all means lets NOT make the playoffs so we're top 14 in draft and can try for the lottery. But purposely tanking since day 1 is stupid. Stupid managerial speaking, and also stupid in terms of marketing. Of course it doesn't sound stupid to fans because all we want is our team to win. But the owners want to make money and sell their product. Got to see it from their perspectives. Who would keep on going to a brand new arena knowing that their team is tanking? And ends up tanking for the next 5 years in a row? That's how you lose fans. No marketer would purposely show it's fan base that they aren't willing to sell their product and they're in fact trashing their product. They're going to put the best product out there for people to buy and that's through winning or trying their best to win. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Toronto didn't really choose to suck. They sucked for almost a decade and then Babcock got there and got rid of a bunch of veterans, Phaneuf and Kessel and tanked all within 1 years time.  Then they happened to get lucky by getting the first round pick. Which obviously landed them Mathews. If they got unlucky they wouldn't have gotten Mathews and likely would have still been eliminated from the playoffs this past year just like all the previous years. 

Also Toronto still isn't good. They're okay. But likely will become good. But good enough to win the Stanley Cup? Probably not with the way Pittsbugh is looking. And once McDavid hits his prime I doubt a combined Mathews, Marner or Nylander could out win him. 

Same goes for Edmonton. They never planned on sucking in 2015. They sucked, simply because they sucked just as they did in the previous years. And they happened to win the draft lottery and jumped from 3rd pick to 1st pick and got McDavid. We easily could be talking about Buffalo instead of Edmonton today. But we aren't because there was a lottery. There is no genius managing involved in this. 

Toronto and Edmonton went through a decade of bad luck and all it took was one year of good luck. Who the hell wants to wait that long. 

And that's just two teams. Buffalo, Carolina are still trying to get "lucky" and it's been about a decade for them too. 

New Jersey has been on trying  to get lucky for about 5 years now, woopty doo they finally got a 1st pick OUT OF SHEER LUCK. Their prize is Hischier (ehhh). They weren't even trying to rebuild they just got screwed by Kovalchuck, Parise leaving lol. They did aquire a crap ton of picks over the years. Nothing different from what Holland is doing. 

I think if it's around February and the prospects of making the playoffs are dim, then sure by all means lets NOT make the playoffs so we're top 14 in draft and can try for the lottery. But purposely tanking since day 1 is stupid. Stupid managerial speaking, and also stupid in terms of marketing. Of course it doesn't sound stupid to fans because all we want is our team to win. But the owners want to make money and sell their product. Got to see it from their perspectives. 

You honestly believe this team ha a chance?  The KH Koolaid is strong, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kickazz said:

Toronto didn't really choose to suck. They sucked for almost a decade and then Babcock got there and got rid of a bunch of veterans, Phaneuf and Kessel and tanked all within 1 years time.  Then they happened to get lucky by getting the first round pick. Which obviously landed them Mathews. If they got unlucky they wouldn't have gotten Mathews and likely would have still been eliminated from the playoffs this past year just like all the previous years. 

Also Toronto still isn't good. They're okay. But likely will become good. But good enough to win the Stanley Cup? Probably not with the way Pittsbugh is looking. And once McDavid hits his prime I doubt a combined Mathews, Marner or Nylander could out win him. 

Same goes for Edmonton. They never planned on sucking in 2015. They sucked, simply because they sucked. And they happened to win the draft lottery and jumped from 3rd pick to 1st pick and got McDavid. We easily could be talking about Buffalo instead of Edmonton today. But we aren't because there was a lottery. There is no genius managing involved in this. 

Toronto and Edmonton went through a decade of bad luck and all it took was one year of good luck. Who the hell wants to wait that long. 

And that's just two teams. Buffalo, Carolina are still trying to get lucky and it's been a decade for them. 

Again, I'm well aware of how long these teams sucked, but they did sell off players in what I would assume was an attempt to suck even more for the McDavid / Matthews drafts. Yeah, you can say Edmonton got lucky with the McDavid sweepstakes, but they also kind of got unlucky with some of their previous first overall picks. However, the Leafs didn't really get lucky, they did have the best odds to land Matthews, due to selling off players in an attempt to be bad and draft an elite player.

I never said anything about wanting a full on rebuild, or that we should suck for years to stockpile draft picks. All I'm saying is, when a team is in a situation, much like we are, no longer considered a contender, they should consider trying to land the elite players of the draft. This year was weak with Hischier and Patrick, but next year there appears to be two elite players in Dahlin and Svechnikov. 

I'm not saying Toronto or Edmonton did, or we should go into the season with tank on our minds, but if halfway through the season, we're on the outside looking in, maybe we should start up the tank. I'm also not saying players should stop trying, but management should take it upon themselves, and trade off players for futures, which coincidentally makes their team worse now and potentially better in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of Edmonton's problem was constantly taking the wrong guys with their top 3 picks.  They took the same type of player every year, and got a couple busts in there.  A art GM would most likely do better.

 

Crap, we have Kenny.  We're screwed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The year TO got Matthews was also a year they got littered with injuries. Had they been healthy, they likely dont draft 1st overall. You can't dismiss the luck factor. Not to mention the guys that were injured during the season. Here is there IR at the end of that season:

James van Riemsdyk

Joffrey Lupul

Peter Holland

Milan Michalek

Matt Hunwick

Nikita Soshnikov

Viktor Loov

There lineup near the end of the season was:

Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4
       
LW Michael Grabner Brooks Laich Colin Greening Tobias Lindberg
C Nazem Kadri Tyler Bozak William Nylander Frederik Gauthier
RW Leo Komarov P. A. Parenteau Brad Boyes Byron Froese
       
       
DP 1 DP 2 DP 3 Goalies
       
D1 Morgan Rielly Jake Gardiner T.J. Brennan Jonathan Bernier
D2 Martin Marincin Frank Corrado Andrew Campbell Garret Sparks
46 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Half of Edmonton's problem was constantly taking the wrong guys with their top 3 picks.  They took the same type of player every year, and got a couple busts in there.  A art GM would most likely do better.

 

Crap, we have Kenny.  We're screwed

You want to give KH crap for cap management, I get it. You really cant give him a hard time for his drafting, over the past few years he has appeared to have done very well. I think most of the draft hate comes from him not picking Vilardi which to be fair we will not know how it turns out for a few more years.

Edited by kliq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're still s*** by January, begin the sale. E, Goalie, Helm, Green, Abby, Glen, Sheahan, one of nyquist/Tatar if we must. Give us our best shot at the generational player, then start fresh with a new GM, all his toadies and an entire coaching staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2017 at 2:52 AM, kylee said:

not even close. Hudler never had game breaking speed/ability the way AA does. Keep low-balling our young players Holland, you were lucky Tatar signed with us. 

I think you forget how good Hudler was early in his career. Unfortunately, just like AA, he was very one-dimensional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DickieDunn said:

Half of Edmonton's problem was constantly taking the wrong guys with their top 3 picks.  They took the same type of player every year, and got a couple busts in there.  A art GM would most likely do better.

You're making excuses. Tanking doesn't work, if it does, it takes a long, long time. In which case I don't even know if its tanking that worked or just time itself that did the trick. 

Anyways, we'll eventually become good through the natural process just like Chicago did. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to break it to yall, but AA isnt that important. 

Someone honestly called him a "generational talent" in this thread lol shoot me.

Much fast + score a few flashy goals and yall treat him like the next Datsyuk. He's Hudler. The Red Wings standards havent dropped, YOUR STANDARDS HAVE DROPPED.

Super cocky and doesnt want to commit to playing defense. Trade him. Let him go to the KHL. Watch the league adjust to his one dimensional play next year like they did Larkin. He'll score 30 pts and yall will defend him like Mrazek, but but but one time he looked promising...hes another middle 6 winger who wont fix anything. Screw him, draft someone who actually wants to be here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I'm not saying Toronto or Edmonton did, or we should go into the season with tank on our minds, but if halfway through the season, we're on the outside looking in, maybe we should start up the tank. I'm also not saying players should stop trying, but management should take it upon themselves, and trade off players for futures, which coincidentally makes their team worse now and potentially better in the future.

But even that is hard for us. Toronto had players other teams wanted. Kessel and Phaneuf. 

If we wanted to sell players that would coincidentally make us worse then we would have to get rid of Mantha, Larkin, Nyquist and Tatar. They ain't doing that. Everyone else isn't really that good and I doubt would make us all that much worse.

Sure we could sell off Helm or Ericsson at the deadline. Guaranteed losing them won't put a dent in our ability to win or lose games. MAYBE selling Green could make us worse. But probably 1-2 spots in the standings. But maybe not.

The thing is, the parity is so high that even on the bottom side of the standings there's literally a 1-2 point difference. So selling or not selling might not even matter because of that. Unless you want more picks. Which Holland already did by selling Smith, Vanek, Ott, Jurco this past year. But if I remember correctly selling those guys didn't make us much worse wins/losses wise. I just happened to give us draft picks. 

For us to actually get significantly worse we would probably have to sell a combination of Zetterberg, Tatar, Nyquist, Green. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kickazz said:

You're making excuses. Tanking doesn't work, if it does, it takes a long, long time. In which case I don't even know if its tanking that worked or just time itself that did the trick. 

Anyways, we'll eventually become good through the natural process just like Chicago did. 

You don't think Chicago benefited from high draft picks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kliq said:

The year TO got Matthews was also a year they got littered with injuries. Had they been healthy, they likely dont draft 1st overall. You can't dismiss the luck factor. Not to mention the guys that were injured during the season. Here is there IR at the end of that season:

James van Riemsdyk

Joffrey Lupul

Peter Holland

Milan Michalek

Matt Hunwick

Nikita Soshnikov

Viktor Loov

There lineup near the end of the season was:

Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Line 4
       
LW Michael Grabner Brooks Laich Colin Greening Tobias Lindberg
C Nazem Kadri Tyler Bozak William Nylander Frederik Gauthier
RW Leo Komarov P. A. Parenteau Brad Boyes Byron Froese
       
       
DP 1 DP 2 DP 3 Goalies
       
D1 Morgan Rielly Jake Gardiner T.J. Brennan Jonathan Bernier
D2 Martin Marincin Frank Corrado Andrew Campbell Garret Sparks

You want to give KH crap for cap management, I get it. You really cant give him a hard time for his drafting, over the past few years he has appeared to have done very well. I think most of the draft hate comes from him not picking Vilardi which to be fair we will not know how it turns out for a few more years.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00005492.html

Larkin was picked to get a hometown boy.  Svech and Mantha were good.  How many other picks int he last 6 or so years can you say were really good picks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

You don't think Chicago benefited from high draft picks?

I do. But it took them a long time. Almost a decade of sucking just like it did with Toronto and Edmonton. They "won" the lottery in 1999 by moving from 8th to 4th pick and that still didn't help them. Almost 10 years later they finally made it a legit run into the playoffs. Which is my point, no amount of "Active" tanking guarantees anything besides probably hurting the team revenue.

You're acting like Holland can actually rebuild right away or something. He can't. It would be a long term process. And he'd rather take the route of acquiring picks etc. Your strategy isn't any better. It's actually worse from an owners perspective. 

 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DickieDunn said:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00005492.html

Larkin was picked to get a hometown boy.  Svech and Mantha were good.  How many other picks int he last 6 or so years can you say were really good picks?

I don't buy this, sure the fact that he was a hometown boy didnt hurt, but players are not picked JUST because of where they were born. Either way, at the end of the day Larkin was a good pick and you can't dismiss it.

I really don't feel like going through every pick we have made over the past 6 years and cross referencing those picks with others in the same round, but off the top of my head all of our 1st rounders appear to be headed in the right direction (ie. Larkin, Svech, Mantha, Chowolski). 

Beyond that, Hronek, Saarijarvi, AA, Bertuzzi, and Smith are all guys picked outside the 1st that look good. 

I'm sure the argument will be "none of these guys are elite" and that may be true unless Mantha or Larkin hit their ceiling, but it's also very hard to find elite talent with the picks we have had. Remember, I never said Holland has been amazing at drafting lately, I said "he has appeared to have done very well".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kickazz said:

I think Holland is doing good drafting actually. Really good. What sucks is the contracts he gave out to Nielsen, Helm, etc in the last 2 years-ish. 

What sucks about those 2 in particular is we didn't need both. I understand going with Nielsen because he was supposed to be your 2nd line center, but we had zero need for both of them. Sheahan wouldve made a fine 3rd line center and probably would've had a better season stat-wise as well. The Helm signing was not needed. You guys tease on me about bitching about loyalty and returning to form, but in helm's case that's exactly what it was, loyalty and hoping he returned to his former self when he was a hit commodity in the nhl. $3.85M that could be very useful right now. Or if you Look at Nielsen, his money would also be very useful right now. Couldve just made Larkin the 2nd line center and rolled the dice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LeftWinger said:

What sucks about those 2 in particular is we didn't need both. I understand going with Nielsen because he was supposed to be your 2nd line center, but we had zero need for both of them. Sheahan wouldve made a fine 3rd line center and probably would've had a better season stat-wise as well. The Helm signing was not needed. You guys tease on me about bitching about loyalty and returning to form, but in helm's case that's exactly what it was, loyalty and hoping he returned to his former self when he was a hit commodity in the nhl. $3.85M that could be very useful right now. Or if you Look at Nielsen, his money would also be very useful right now. Couldve just made Larkin the 2nd line center and rolled the dice. 

I can live with the Helm deal.  He brings speed.  Thr Abdelkader and Nielsen deals are awful though.  10 mil per for thr pair for another 5 years.  That just sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Hate to break it to yall, but AA isnt that important. 

Someone honestly called him a "generational talent" in this thread lol shoot me.

Much fast + score a few flashy goals and yall treat him like the next Datsyuk. He's Hudler. The Red Wings standards havent dropped, YOUR STANDARDS HAVE DROPPED.

Super cocky and doesnt want to commit to playing defense. Trade him. Let him go to the KHL. Watch the league adjust to his one dimensional play next year like they did Larkin. He'll score 30 pts and yall will defend him like Mrazek, but but but one time he looked promising...hes another middle 6 winger who wont fix anything. Screw him, draft someone who actually wants to be here.

Why do you always go polar opposite when arguing an (over)hyped player? No, Athanasiou won't ever be a generational talent, and it's crazy to think he could be, but to say he isn't an important piece to this team, is just as crazy in my opinion. He will likely develop into a solid top 6 winger, and those are very valuable.

8 hours ago, kickazz said:

But even that is hard for us. Toronto had players other teams wanted. Kessel and Phaneuf. 

If we wanted to sell players that would coincidentally make us worse then we would have to get rid of Mantha, Larkin, Nyquist and Tatar. They ain't doing that. Everyone else isn't really that good and I doubt would make us all that much worse.

Sure we could sell off Helm or Ericsson at the deadline. Guaranteed losing them won't put a dent in our ability to win or lose games. MAYBE selling Green could make us worse. But probably 1-2 spots in the standings. But maybe not.

The thing is, the parity is so high that even on the bottom side of the standings there's literally a 1-2 point difference. So selling or not selling might not even matter because of that. Unless you want more picks. Which Holland already did by selling Smith, Vanek, Ott, Jurco this past year. But if I remember correctly selling those guys didn't make us much worse wins/losses wise. I just happened to give us draft picks. 

For us to actually get significantly worse we would probably have to sell a combination of Zetterberg, Tatar, Nyquist, Green. 

Kessel was an easy sell, but Phaneuf was not a player teams were calling for. The Leafs were trying to get rid of him, and they managed to dump him on the Sens. People complain about DeKeyser, but I'd take him at $5M for another 5 seasons over Phaneuf at $7m for another 4 seasons. The Leafs also traded David f***ing Clarkson, and people say that we have s***ty players on untradeable contracts...

I just want to point out that I'm not saying we should tank. I've argued several times in the past that tanking is a terrible strategy since the lottery was implemented. My point is that the Leafs and Oilers being bad for a long time isn't the reason they're now on the upswing, it's because they landed that number one overall, generational type talent. If the Leafs didn't land Matthews, they probably would have finished last season toward the bottom of the standings once again. Same with Edmonton landing McDavid. We can continue missing the playoffs for another 5 seasons, drafting 7-12 every year, and still be no further ahead. Or we can miss 1-2 more seasons, luck out in the draft lottery and land an elite player that immediately changes the fortune of this team. As the Flyers proved last season, you don't need to bottom out to have a chance at a generational talent (not saying Patrick is that).

The rest I pretty much agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right but my point is doing bad 1-2 seasons doesn't necessarily mean you'll get the top 3 pick. And suddently 1-2 years can turn into 5 years.

As kliq pointed out Toronto also had some major injuries that year. 

Plus the point I made about the bottom teams also having high parity. It's almost a competition to end up in the bottom 3 or even bottom 5 just like it is in the top 3 or top 5. 

Parity + Lottery = NHL making it virtually impossible for 1-2 year tank job to work without luck. See Carolina, New Jersey, Buffalo, Arizona etc. 

 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

What sucks about those 2 in particular is we didn't need both. I understand going with Nielsen because he was supposed to be your 2nd line center, but we had zero need for both of them. Sheahan wouldve made a fine 3rd line center and probably would've had a better season stat-wise as well. The Helm signing was not needed. You guys tease on me about bitching about loyalty and returning to form, but in helm's case that's exactly what it was, loyalty and hoping he returned to his former self when he was a hit commodity in the nhl. $3.85M that could be very useful right now. Or if you Look at Nielsen, his money would also be very useful right now. Couldve just made Larkin the 2nd line center and rolled the dice. 

No it wasnt, Helm was signed because Holland rely's too much on vets which is the same reason why he signed Nielsen.

Holland is loyal, there is no doubt and IMO that is a good thing, but the Helm signing was not done simply because of loyalty, was he given a tad more then they wanted because of it? Maybe, but the signing was because of loyalty. The only situations on this team that I believe are purely "loyalty" based would be the contracts given to Cleary, Kronwall still having a spot, and maybe E not being traded.

If anything, Holland overvalued Helm when deciding if he should sign him. Saying it was because of loyalty sounds like you are just trying to find a single reason to criticize which is not the way it works. Its easier to say "If Holland was not blank, all our problems would be fixed" and here blank has become "loyalty". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kickazz said:

I do. But it took them a long time. Almost a decade of sucking just like it did with Toronto and Edmonton. They "won" the lottery in 1999 by moving from 8th to 4th pick and that still didn't help them. Almost 10 years later they finally made it a legit run into the playoffs. Which is my point, no amount of "Active" tanking guarantees anything besides probably hurting the team revenue.

You're acting like Holland can actually rebuild right away or something. He can't. It would be a long term process. And he'd rather take the route of acquiring picks etc. Your strategy isn't any better. It's actually worse from an owners perspective. 

 


I'm confused.  You said Chicago got good through a natural process.  Now you're saying that they sucked for a decade just like the other teams that tanked.  

In order to get good, you either need to be be bad for a period of years or get extremely lucky.  Holland is banking on hitting a couple homeruns with later picks.  I think it's a huge mistake.  The team he's build has at best a 50-50 shot of making the playoffs.  It's loaded with vets and mid level players on long contracts that pay them too much.  If the team I'm a fan of doesn't have any real shot of winning, I'd rather that they be going with younger players who have a chance to improve instead of guys that they're hoping will rebound or won't slide too much at 30-ish years old.

Mantha-Zetterberg-Nyquist

Tatar-Larkin-Abdelkader

Svechnikov-AA-Sheahan

Bertuzzi-Glendening*-Witkowski

2 random cheap vets as reserves

Dekeyser-Green

XO-Jensen

Kronwall-Sproul

*at $950k or so

That looks better to me going forward than what will be on the ice this year.  

Ericsson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:


I'm confused.  You said Chicago got good through a natural process.  Now you're saying that they sucked for a decade just like the other teams that tanked.  

In order to get good, you either need to be be bad for a period of years or get extremely lucky.  Holland is banking on hitting a couple homeruns with later picks.  I think it's a huge mistake.  The team he's build has at best a 50-50 shot of making the playoffs.  It's loaded with vets and mid level players on long contracts that pay them too much.  If the team I'm a fan of doesn't have any real shot of winning, I'd rather that they be going with younger players who have a chance to improve instead of guys that they're hoping will rebound or won't slide too much at 30-ish years old.

Mantha-Zetterberg-Nyquist

Tatar-Larkin-Abdelkader

Svechnikov-AA-Sheahan

Bertuzzi-Glendening*-Witkowski

2 random cheap vets as reserves

Dekeyser-Green

XO-Jensen

Kronwall-Sproul

*at $950k or so

That looks better to me going forward than what will be on the ice this year.  

Ericsson

What abpyt Nielsen and Helm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:


I'm confused.  You said Chicago got good through a natural process.  Now you're saying that they sucked for a decade just like the other teams that tanked.  

Natural process as in they sucked and tried not to suck but inevitably sucked anyways (just like we are currently).  They even got Lapointe to boost their squad if you remember. They didn't ACTIVELY tank. 

Tanking =/= sucking

There's 14 teams that don't make the playoffs and are lottery eligible. 14 teams don't tank per year. 14 teams just happen to not be good enough to make it.

47 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:


I'm confused.  You said Chicago got good through a natural process.  Now you're saying that they sucked for a decade just like the other teams that tanked.  

In order to get good, you either need to be be bad for a period of years or get extremely lucky.  Holland is banking on hitting a couple homeruns with later picks.  I think it's a huge mistake.  The team he's build has at best a 50-50 shot of making the playoffs.  It's loaded with vets and mid level players on long contracts that pay them too much.  If the team I'm a fan of doesn't have any real shot of winning, I'd rather that they be going with younger players who have a chance to improve instead of guys that they're hoping will rebound or won't slide too much at 30-ish years old.

 

Except he's not trying to get later picks, he's going with the flow and if things don't work he sells. We were supposed to pick #6 or whatever but because of the lottery we ended up at #9. That's the NHL for you. And if you're talking about the Mantha pick and Larkin pick. We were still a contender back then and D and Z were still top 10 (arguably even top 5) league players (and well above a PPG players). You don't tank when you have the two best defensive forwards in the league on your team still in the tail end of their primes (age 32 and 33).

Your arguments are so weak Dickie, it's almost a headache to keep dealing with your broken record s***. And that's really saying something because as we all know, I love to argue because I got the "always gotta be right complex" 

Second bold point - Mantha, Larkin, AA, Jensen, Oullette were all main roster players. Svech, Bertuzzi, Sproul and Russo all played games as well. Tatar and Nyquist have been on the team for almost 4 years now. So what's your point?

Larkin started playing in this first year as a pro. Mantha in his 2nd year as a pro. What's the issue? 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now