2020 Offseason Rebuild Thread

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

10 hours ago, Buppy said:

There is no discussion. You're repeating yourself. If you really want me to do the same, here you go:

Funny how words work

10 hours ago, Buppy said:

But they aren't core players in your plan.

So what?

10 hours ago, Buppy said:

You're skipping right over that stage of their careers to the "maybe they'd be worth keeping around as vet leaders" stage.

So what?

10 hours ago, Buppy said:

They'll be 29 when Larkin's next contract starts, assuming they don't just bail in 3 years when they could be UFAs. They;ll be at the stage where they're likely starting to decline, possibly saddling us with bad contracts right in the middle of your planned cup window.

So because a player could maybe possibly bail in the future we should trade em. Good logic Einstein.

29 is too old for you, but FA's will more than likely be that age or older. More amazing logic.

10 hours ago, Buppy said:

Considering both AA and Mantha have at times had their work-ethic questioned, and neither of them have played a NHL playoff game at this point (nor, according to your plan, will they in the next two years at least), I don't think "veteran leader" is a role either would particularly well-suited for.

They're 24

10 hours ago, Buppy said:

If we're going to do anything with those guys, it needs to be done soon. Either build something with them, or trade them while we can still get a return that could contribute during Larkin's window.

Yeah, like the next 4 to 5 years

Edited August 7, 2019 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

4 hours ago, Dabura said:

I'm not sure which side this puts me on in this back-and-forth you're having with CRL (I've kinda skimmed over it), but, yeah, that's how I see it. We're waiting for things to unfold naturally and we're hoping the result is a good one.

Do you think Mantha, AA, and Bertuzzi need to be traded NOW if we don't push for it all in the next two years?

2 hours ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Did I miss something? 

Didn't St Louis just win with a 29 year old Pietrangelo  and a 28 year old O'Reilly leading the charge. Not to mention

Bozak - 33

Bouwmeester - 35

Perron - 31

Steen - 35

Now they had good players in their prime and some young guys too. 

Basically, Larkin will be 28 in five years, Matha 29. Zadina, Sieder, Hronek, Rasmussen etc will be in their primes. Pack a few young sub-24 year olds around that. 

This team has time. No need to rush anything IMO. 

 

Truly a miracle that all those "declining" players pulled it off. We'll probably never see such an elderly team win a cup again in this lifetime.

[Buppy 1,720]

4 hours ago, Dabura said:

There's a lot of bloat on this team and our current core -- Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou -- is basically a placeholder as we wait to see what we have in the ELC kids we're drafting in these rebuild years. So, we're running out the clock on a number of veteran contracts and we're waiting to see if these draft hauls pay off in the form of a roster full of really good young players, a roster that deserves and demands to be supplemented by big moves.

The hope is that we're only a year or two away from having that roster. If, say, Hronek performs like a top-pairing defenseman in 2019-20 and Seider performs really well through a couple dozen NHL games like Hronek did this past season, that's a quantum leap forward for this rebuild -- if not the end of it altogether.

I'm not sure which side this puts me on in this back-and-forth you're having with CRL (I've kinda skimmed over it), but, yeah, that's how I see it. We're waiting for things to unfold naturally and we're hoping the result is a good one.

Neither, really. I would say that if we consider our current core nothing more than placeholders, we'd be better off trading them for guys who would be entering their prime in our expected cup window, but obviously if you think that window could open in a couple years it's not really an option.. 

 

2 hours ago, The 91 of Ryans said:

Did I miss something? 

Yes

24 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Funny ...

"Becoming competitive again in 2 seasons" gives a very different impression than "Next Window: Larkin's Second Contract AKA the return to cup contention", so maybe I just have the wrong idea about what you actually expect the next four seasons to look like. But going off the "cup window opens in year 5" your original post suggested I'd still say we'd be much better off with a few kids in their early 20s just entering their prime then a few guys at the end of theirs (especially if you think there's even any chance you might not want to keep them). There are always "vet leaders" to be had in free agency. Plus the risk of losing them in three years whether we want to or not. Hell, if we're not contenders before Larkin's current deal is up, I wouldn't be so sure he'd even want to stay. Year 3 for the window opening changes things obviously. 

Personally I hope the management has not yet written off this season (much less next) the way fans have. Grim as it looks from our off-season so far, I'm still hoping we see enough growth from the younger guys that we feel comfortable making a move or two this year, or at the very least head into next summer with a much more proactive and aggressive attitude.

[The 91 of Ryans 3,014]

3 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Yes

Cool. I def. like you better when you're brief. 

 

[Dabura 12,207]

23 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Do you think Mantha, AA, and Bertuzzi need to be traded NOW if we don't push for it all in the next two years?

3 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Neither, really. I would say that if we consider our current core nothing more than placeholders, we'd be better off trading them for guys who would be entering their prime in our expected cup window, but obviously if you think that window could open in a couple years it's not really an option..

I believe we have one bona fide cornerstone player in Larkin and everything else is up in the air, because we've only been rebuilding for a couple of years and we haven't struck gold yet (that we know of). I think Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou are solid players and I'm hoping we'll soon get to a point where there will be less of a focus on them as other young players start to become NHLers and we get an actual roster. Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou, And Maybe Hronek (Question Mark) isn't a roster. We're in a holding pattern for at least one more season. Just the nature of the rebuild beast.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

35 minutes ago, Buppy said:

"Becoming competitive again in 2 seasons" gives a very different impression than "Next Window: Larkin's Second Contract AKA the return to cup contention", so maybe I just have the wrong idea about what you actually expect the next four seasons to look like.

I don't think this team has the assets, or will be able to develop or acquire the necessary assets to be competitive within the next 2 seasons. I tend to think Yzerman likely agrees with that notion based on the 2-year stop gap contracts he handed out this offseason.

that said, I think we can we can become competitive again after this 2 year stretch ahead of us. What I mean by competitive is: A team with salaries more in control, a team ready to add meaningful FAs or meaningful players via trade, and a team flirting with and/or making the playoffs.

After two years of being "competive" and improving the roster I think this team could develop into a cup-contender. A team like Boston/Tampa/Toronto etc who has a superb roster and is expected to go deep in the playoffs.

I hope that's clear.

35 minutes ago, Buppy said:

I'd still say we'd be much better off with a few kids in their early 20s just entering their prime then a few guys at the end of theirs (especially if you think there's even any chance you might not want to keep them).

If AA/Bertuzzi/Mantha were 33+ at that time, I would agree with you. 29 year old players are valuable assets IMO and will help with a playoff or cup push

35 minutes ago, Buppy said:

There are always "vet leaders" to be had in free agency.

Again, 29 is too old in your mind, but adding via FA (players who are likely 29 or older) is an option? Keeping AA/Bertuzzi/Mantha isn't just about leadership to me. These are valuable players who contribute in significant ways. I'm ok with moving them, but I'd prefer a lateral move.

I'll point out again too that Yzerman doesn't like to build via FA.

35 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Hell, if we're not contenders before Larkin's current deal is up, I wouldn't be so sure he'd even want to stay. Year 3 for the window opening changes things obviously.

Star players rarely move teams. I'm not the least bit concerned about Larkin.

35 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Personally I hope the management has not yet written off this season (much less next) the way fans have. Grim as it looks from our off-season so far, I'm still hoping we see enough growth from the younger guys that we feel comfortable making a move or two this year, or at the very least head into next summer with a much more proactive and aggressive attitude.

Hopefully the kids force the issue and the team is forced to become competitive faster. I would like that, but that could be good or bad for this team too. Accelerating too quickly can become a problem I think. But again, I too would like to be relevant sooner.

I think management will likely sell off assets this TDL. Draft high again. And do the same again the season after. Yzerman preached patience for a reason. Hopefully the kids success will make him more eager to accelerate sooner.

Edited August 7, 2019 by ChristopherReevesLegs

[Buppy 1,720]

3 hours ago, Dabura said:

I believe we have one bona fide cornerstone player in Larkin and everything else is up in the air, because we've only been rebuilding for a couple of years and we haven't struck gold yet (that we know of). I think Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou are solid players and I'm hoping we'll soon get to a point where there will be less of a focus on them as other young players start to become NHLers and we get an actual roster. Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou, And Maybe Hronek (Question Mark) isn't a roster. We're in a holding pattern for at least one more season. Just the nature of the rebuild beast.

All I would disagree with here is that we need to have "an actual roster" before we can start making moves to try to supplement what we have. I don't think you should ever pass up an opportunity to add talent to your expected core. You never know if you'll have that opportunity in the future. While it requires having some faith that what we have already is worth building upon, the counter argument is that if they aren't then our rebuild is pretty much f***ed regardless.

I understand if we want to say our rebuild needs more high picks. That we still need to draft more potential stars. I don't agree, but I understand the logic. I'd just add that if that's the logic we want to go with, we should shift our thinking away from "we're half-way done building around Larkin, Mantha, and AA" to "we just started this thing", and from there start looking at our current prime players and asking if they'd be better used as part of the future, or assets we could use to acquire some.

[ely s 457]

2 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I don't think this team has the assets, or will be able to develop or acquire the necessary assets to be competitive within the next 2 seasons. I tend to think Yzerman likely agrees with that notion based on the 2-year stop gap contracts he handed out this offseason.

that said, I think we can we can become competitive again after this 2 year stretch ahead of us. What I mean by competitive is: A team with salaries more in control, a team ready to add meaningful FAs or meaningful players via trade, and a team flirting with and/or making the playoffs.

After two years of being "competive" and improving the roster I think this team could develop into a cup-contender. A team like Boston/Tampa/Toronto etc who has a superb roster and is expected to go deep in the playoffs.

I hope that's clear.
 

...

Hopefully the kids force the issue and the team is forced to become competitive faster. I would like that, but that could be good or bad for this team too. Accelerating too quickly can become a problem I think. But again, I too would like to be relevant sooner.

I think management will likely sell off assets this TDL. Draft high again. And do the same again the season after. Yzerman preached patience for a reason. Hopefully the kids success will make him more eager to accelerate sooner.

Depends on what you mean with competitive. Will we have a roster like TB had last year ? no. did it help TB ? no. I think this year we have a chance to be at least close to the playoffs, because I think we will see good seasons of players who are already written off by a lot of people here and the continued growth. At the TDL we will gather a few more picks. On Draft day 2020 we will sit there with at least 11 picks, around 20 of our better prospects, a full year of evaluation of what we have for SY and a team that hopefully has given their young guns opportunity to grow. Now you look for teams with upcoming cap problems to fill needs, you can´t fill from within, with picks and prospects. So come October 2020 you have a team able to reach the playoffs with still lots of talent in the pipeline after one year.

Our salaries are in control and we could trade for meaningful players, but the urgency for one of these trades isn´t really there in the moment imo. We need a complete overhaul of our defense and we can´t do that through trades and UFAs alone. SY wants to see with his own eyes what we have, he wants to know to judge properly. Sure it would have been great if for example Trouba would have found his way here, but hey we have Hronek and Seider and probably they turn out as good. So check what you have and figure out what you need. In 2021 we will have even more young players pushing for jobs and we will be in a very comfortable position in being able to afford to trade good prospects/players for real upgrades of our roster.

There is no advantage in trying to draft high this year imo. We want to finish our rebuild and not stretching it. Our team needs wins more now than high picks. You need confidence and you get confidence through success not tanking. Look at Edmonton they instilled a losing environment and now with 2 starplayers? still losing... It doesn´t really matter if it´s the 6th or 15th pick, in terms of what you get, but ten more wins gives the whole team confidence and that is what matters.

[Buppy 1,720]

3 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I don't think ...

The part you bolded wasn't even a complete idea. There was nothing there to agree or disagree with. Odd that you would say you have more faith than I do when you think it will take 4 years to accomplish what I think can be done in 2. To answer your last question here: No, I do not think we need 4 years. I think we could be a contender after 2. Even as soon as next year if we got really lucky. Maybe not President's Trophy winners/odds-on favorites, but good enough to feel we would have a legit shot at beating any team in the league in a 7-game series. If we are able to add some good FAs over the next two years, and we are still not at that point, I would have to start questioning whether or not that core of players would ever get there.

Regarding the expansion draft; you lose one player. No more, no less. Even if we assume that we have a full allotment of players to protect already, adding a UFA then subsequently losing him to Seattle isn't any worse than never signing the player in the first place. Possibly even better if the player we would otherwise lose could be even a minor contributor. If we signed more than one player, or we had "free" protection slots, we are unquestionably ahead. Again, literally impossible for the expansion draft to hurt us any more than you would already be hurting yourself.

The NHL has seen plenty of young leaders, and plenty have come from FA. Though considering you've already admitted that you're not sure you would even want them in that role makes me think you're being disingenuous here anyway, and using insults to mask the lack of a real argument. 

 

[Euro_Twins 4,476]

18 hours ago, Buppy said:

We're going in circles now; no point in repeating myself. If you want an answer just read one of my previous posts.

I'm not sure what you consider rushing, or what you think is being proposed, but I would just add that waiting too long can be as harmful as anything. Mantha, AA, and Bert could leave in three years. Larkin in four. The slower we progress toward relevancy, the greater the risk of that happening. The more opportunities to add talent we allow to pass by, the greater the risk of missing out entirely.

What exactly is it we're supposed to be waiting for, anyway?

 

More talent, defense. We aren't a contender right now. We need to build properly over the next 2 years. Not trade the few assets 2e have and create a new hole 

[Buppy 1,720]

1 hour ago, Euro_Twins said:

More talent, defense. We aren't a contender right now. We need to build properly over the next 2 years. Not trade the few assets 2e have and create a new hole 

You misunderstood the premise.

[Euro_Twins 4,476]

46 minutes ago, Buppy said:

You misunderstood the premise.

A lot of people proposing we trade for guys or sign shattenkirk or blah blah blah. Some of these scenarios are nice in theory but it only gets us back to where we were at the end of our streak. We need to be patient until we get some legit talent. Seider may be just that we wont know for a couple years. But we cant be trying to rush something just for the sake of an 8th seed first round exit. 

[Buppy 1,720]

19 minutes ago, Euro_Twins said:

A lot of people proposing we trade for guys or sign shattenkirk or blah blah blah. Some of these scenarios are nice in theory but it only gets us back to where we were at the end of our streak. We need to be patient until we get some legit talent. Seider may be just that we wont know for a couple years. But we cant be trying to rush something just for the sake of an 8th seed first round exit. 

So I would surmise from this that you think our rebuild is in the beginning stages (i.e. What we need to succeed has yet to be drafted, so we need to stay "bad" in order to get high picks.) rather than the middle (i.e. We pretty much have what we need, Just need some guys to finish developing, and fill a couple holes.)?

[F.Michael 4,590]

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

So I would surmise from this that you think our rebuild is in the beginning stages (i.e. What we need to succeed has yet to be drafted, so we need to stay "bad" in order to get high picks.) rather than the middle (i.e. We pretty much have what we need, Just need some guys to finish developing, and fill a couple holes.)?

It's tough to judge how long a rebuild will take...I'm willing to give 'Grand Master Y' a few seasons before I begin to criticize the man.

[Euro_Twins 4,476]

2 hours ago, Buppy said:

So I would surmise from this that you think our rebuild is in the beginning stages (i.e. What we need to succeed has yet to be drafted, so we need to stay "bad" in order to get high picks.) rather than the middle (i.e. We pretty much have what we need, Just need some guys to finish developing, and fill a couple holes.)?

I feel like you're trying to back me into a corner for some reason. We have a few good core players, but were not ready to contend yet. Yes we need to get a couple good draft picks, and get lucky in the lottery so we can draft a bonafide star. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. 

[Buppy 1,720]

15 minutes ago, Euro_Twins said:

I feel like you're trying to back me into a corner for some reason. We have a few good core players, but were not ready to contend yet. Yes we need to get a couple good draft picks, and get lucky in the lottery so we can draft a bonafide star. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. 

I have no ulterior motive, nor any problem with that opinion. I don't agree, but at least it's reasonable. I would simply argue that in that case, and depending on how long you'd expect it to take before we became a contender, it could make more sense to trade players currently in their prime for players who would be in their prime in the expected cup window. 

What I don't think is reasonable is trying to walk down both sides of the street, arguing that Mantha and AA will be vital components of our cup contention as they move into their 30's, while simultaneously arguing that they aren't good enough to try to build with now, and maybe we won't even want them at that age anyway.

[Dabura 12,207]

4 hours ago, Buppy said:

All I would disagree with here is that we need to have "an actual roster" before we can start making moves to try to supplement what we have. I don't think you should ever pass up an opportunity to add talent to your expected core. You never know if you'll have that opportunity in the future.

Naw, that's fair. I basically agree with you. I guess what I'm saying is that supplementing a core of "Larkin, et al." probably isn't quite the approach Yzerman has in mind at this time. I don't actually know the mind of Steve Yzerman, but my rough impression is that he wants to wait just a bit longer before he makes any big moves. That he wants to get a better sense of what we have in the system.

Next summer could be the true start of the Yzerman era, with Mantha and Bertuzzi and Athanasiou all needing new deals and with Yzerman possibly having a s***-ton of cap space to work with.

4 hours ago, Buppy said:

While it requires having some faith that what we have already is worth building upon, the counter argument is that if they aren't then our rebuild is pretty much f***ed regardless.

It's still sort of early days tho.

Larkin turned 23 a week ago.

Mantha (turns 25 in Sep), Bertuzzi (turns 25 in Feb), and Athanasiou (turned 25 yesterday) are several years younger than Tomas Tatar, who's doing quite well for himself as a Canadien.

Hronek (turns 21 in Nov), Cholowski (turns 22 in Feb), Rasmussen (turns 21 in Apr), Zadina (turns 20 in Nov), and Veleno (turns 20 in Jan) are very young. Hronek is going to make the team out of camp and the other four are right there on the bubble.

In Hronek, we may have a 21/22-year-old top-pairing NHL defenseman.

In Seider (turns 19 in Apr), we may have an 18/19-year-old top-four NHL defenseman.

All of which is to say...Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou isn't much of a core, *BUT* internal reinforcements are coming and the team as we know it could look radically different by the end of the 2019-20 season, even without bringing in any really good players from outside the organization. So, I'm down with Yzerman looking to make some shot-in-the-arm moves, but I don't feel like there needs to be a serious sense of urgency on that front. Not until next summer, at the earliest. Or perhaps the 2020 trade deadline...

6 hours ago, Buppy said:

I understand if we want to say our rebuild needs more high picks. That we still need to draft more potential stars. I don't agree, but I understand the logic. I'd just add that if that's the logic we want to go with, we should shift our thinking away from "we're half-way done building around Larkin, Mantha, and AA" to "we just started this thing", and from there start looking at our current prime players and asking if they'd be better used as part of the future, or assets we could use to acquire some.

Not sure I follow the logic here. Why not just say we're planning on being done with the rebuild within the next couple of years? We don't have to commit to or renounce Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou as our core right now. Personally, I want to see what a team featuring Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou, Hronek, Cholowski, Rasmussen, Zadina, Veleno, and Seider looks like. I want to see if we'll be adding Lafreniere/Byfield/Raymond/Holtz/Lundell to the mix. I want to see what trade opportunities present themselves. We've gotta give the rebuild at least another season. We've gotta let some things unfold.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

8 hours ago, Buppy said:

The part you bolded wasn't even a complete idea. There was nothing there to agree or disagree with. Odd that you would say you have more faith than I do when you think it will take 4 years to accomplish what I think can be done in 2. To answer your last question here: No, I do not think we need 4 years. I think we could be a contender after 2. Even as soon as next year if we got really lucky. Maybe not President's Trophy winners/odds-on favorites, but good enough to feel we would have a legit shot at beating any team in the league in a 7-game series. If we are able to add some good FAs over the next two years, and we are still not at that point, I would have to start questioning whether or not that core of players would ever get there.

Regarding the expansion draft; you lose one player. No more, no less. Even if we assume that we have a full allotment of players to protect already, adding a UFA then subsequently losing him to Seattle isn't any worse than never signing the player in the first place. Possibly even better if the player we would otherwise lose could be even a minor contributor. If we signed more than one player, or we had "free" protection slots, we are unquestionably ahead. Again, literally impossible for the expansion draft to hurt us any more than you would already be hurting yourself.

The NHL has seen plenty of young leaders, and plenty have come from FA. Though considering you've already admitted that you're not sure you would even want them in that role makes me think you're being disingenuous here anyway, and using insults to mask the lack of a real argument. 

 

•  

Being completely upfront with you, I expect more from you. You're smarter than this.

8 hours ago, Buppy said:

The part you bolded wasn't even a complete idea. There was nothing there to agree or disagree with.

 

I didn't bold anything...

8 hours ago, Buppy said:

Odd that you would say you have more faith than I do when you think it will take 4 years to accomplish what I think can be done in 2.

You're way to hung up on this. You have more faith than me, I admit that openly, no need to harp on it.

8 hours ago, Buppy said:

Regarding the expansion draft; you lose one player. No more, no less. Even if we assume that we have a full allotment of players to protect already, adding a UFA then subsequently losing him to Seattle isn't any worse than never signing the player in the first place. Possibly even better if the player we would otherwise lose could be even a minor contributor. If we signed more than one player, or we had "free" protection slots, we are unquestionably ahead. Again, literally impossible for the expansion draft to hurt us any more than you would already be hurting yourself

Not sure why you're re-inserting this. I said already this is completely side car to my point, and I conceded to you in interest of avoiding the distraction...

8 hours ago, Buppy said:

The NHL has seen plenty of young leaders, and plenty have come from FA. Though considering you've already admitted that you're not sure you would even want them in that role makes me think you're being disingenuous here anyway, and using insults to mask the lack of a real argument. 

 

What?

Hey dickweed. Loser. R-tard. I will re-evalute if I want to keep them in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4. For now I want them. Does that explanation appease your sensitive nature?

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

2 hours ago, Buppy said:

 What I don't think is reasonable is trying to walk down both sides of the street, arguing that Mantha and AA will be vital components of our cup contention as they move into their 30's, while simultaneously arguing that they aren't good enough to try to build with now, and maybe we won't even want them at that age anyway.

Who's arguing this? Honestly? Quote them, cause I haven't seen it from anyone but you.

 

[Buppy 1,720]

2 hours ago, Dabura said:

Naw, that's fair. I basically agree with you. I guess what I'm saying is that supplementing a core of "Larkin, et al." probably isn't quite the approach Yzerman has in mind at this time. I don't actually know the mind of Steve Yzerman, but my rough impression is that he wants to wait just a bit longer before he makes any big moves. That he wants to get a better sense of what we have in the system.

Next summer could be the true start of the Yzerman era, with Mantha and Bertuzzi and Athanasiou all needing new deals and with Yzerman possibly having a s***-ton of cap space to work with.

...

Not sure I follow the logic here. Why not just say we're planning on being done with the rebuild within the next couple of years? We don't have to commit to or renounce Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou as our core right now. Personally, I want to see what a team featuring Larkin, Mantha, Bertuzzi, Athanasiou, Hronek, Cholowski, Rasmussen, Zadina, Veleno, and Seider looks like. I want to see if we'll be adding Lafreniere/Byfield/Raymond/Holtz/Lundell to the mix. I want to see what trade opportunities present themselves. We've gotta give the rebuild at least another season. We've gotta let some things unfold.

I pretty much agree with all of this. The idea to trade those guys was based of CRLs plan to not be relevant for 5 years. Changing the timeline would affect my opinions.

 

7 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Being completely up...

We're going in circles now; no point in repeating myself. If you want an answer just read one of my previous posts.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

1 minute ago, Buppy said:

I pretty much agree with all of this. The idea to trade those guys was based of CRLs plan to not be relevant for 5 years. Changing the timeline would affect my opinions.

 

We're going in circles now; no point in repeating myself. If you want an answer just read one of my previous posts.

Not buppy's favorite point to argue I see (and expected). I accept your concession

[Buppy 1,720]

38 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Not buppy's favorite point to argue I see (and expected). I accept your concession

There is no discussion. You're repeating yourself. If you really want me to do the same, here you go:

[Dabura 12,207]

4 hours ago, Buppy said:

I pretty much agree with all of this. The idea to trade those guys was based of CRLs plan to not be relevant for 5 years. Changing the timeline would affect my opinions.

I disagree with all of this. Fight me.

[LeftWinger 4,958]

I am not a fan of creating a hole to fill another, especially when it comes to acquiring a player already in his prime and nearing 30.  I am perfectly fine with letting our "core" grow and learn to lose and win together, much like we did in the early 90's.  The ONE exception I would make (which I've mentioned a few times) but I know he is not available, I would trade from our "core" to acquire Werenski, within reason of course.  I honestly do not know why he hasn't sign yet.  They have over $15M in cap space, he should've been sign weeks ago.

[F.Michael 4,590]

4 hours ago, Dabura said:

I disagree with all of this. Fight me.