Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 06:52 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

10 February 2016 - 08:25 PM

Buppy, I think you're reading way too much into my word choice. But the way you're reading it is not at all what I meant, and I'm pretty sure anyone else wouldn't have read it that way either. I'm hyping the guy up and saying he's exactly what we need, but he can't Crack Winnipeg's top 4...? Really? So what about all the times I've said that Jurco is buried on the 4th line. Did you take that as me saying he's not very important to us? No I'm saying he's down there and he shouldn't be...

Regardless, I think we agree on his value, and it sounds like we'd both like to make a trade for him.

Yeah, I don't want to drag this out much more, but come on. If someone were to tell you that player x is "playing third pair minutes" and "can't crack the top 4", where would you assume that player ranks on the team in ice time? What range do you think he'd be in league-wide? I'm guessing you wouldn't say "3rd by a small margin" and "low-60s".


Fact is, he's been on the top pair about as often as the bottom, and the ice-time he gets is low-top/high-2nd pair range.


Jurco isn't a good comparison. He is on the 4th line, 12th in ice-time for our current active roster, 16th for all forwards this year. And he is completely unimportant to the team. Just about as irrelevant as a player can be, really.


It's more like saying Larkin is buried on our 2nd-line. Or maybe Tatar buried on the third, except that's actually accurate in terms of ice time.

In Topic: 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

10 February 2016 - 07:11 PM

It's not at all misleading when I acknowledge how much time he eats up. It's not as if I'm saying he's "only a third pairing guy". I'm saying he's playing on the third pair because there's two guys playing above him. I don't know if he's played much time with Byfuglien, but any time I've seen him play, it's been buried on the 3rd pair with Stuart... And no, I'm not saying a defenseman can't play his off side (as we've shown for many years in Detroit), but I think every coach and GM would prefer to have a lefty and righty on every pair...



And yeah, saying "buried on the 3rd pair" is misleading. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but it implies that he isn't very important to them. It's not like they're amazingly deep on defense, that it's obvious they'd want to trade one for a forward. But do that and it creates a big hole on defense.


Sure, they'd probably prefer a lefty, but you could have said the same when they traded Bogo last year. 


I dont understand all the love for Trouba.


What am I not seeing that makes him so appealing that we would want to trade "damn near anyone" for him?


I really like him as a player but I dont think hes much better than players we already have.


Am I the only one that thinks this?

Not sure if that "damn near anyone" should be taken as praise of Trouba or an expression of what Dickie thinks of our assets. But he is only 21 and already playing big, important minutes. All things considered, I'd take him over anyone on our defense except Dekeyser.


For sure he isn't worth what he reportedly asked for, but that's probably just an RFA trying to get what little leverage he can. Start in the stars so it looks like you've made more of a concession when you come down to something reasonable.

In Topic: 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

10 February 2016 - 03:43 PM

Buppy, yes he is 3rd on the team in TOI, but that doesn't change the fact that he's currently playing on the 3rd pair. They have their one, two punch on the right side with Byfuglien and Meyers, so unless they're going to trade Meyers, who they just acquired last year, and promote Trouba, it doesn't make sense to keep all 3. Nor does it make sense to trade for another top 4 in Hamonic that also plays the right side... It could happen, but it doesn't really solve Winnipeg's issue. They should be looking for a winger, not defense, which is why I suggested Nyquist, and a defense prospect that can fill in on the bottom pair, such as Ouellet.

I also doubt they would have any interest in Quincey as they're already too far out of a playoff spot, and losing a guy like Trouba and adding assets could increase their lottery odds...

Call it 3rd pair if you want, but that's misleading. He's also spent quite a bit of time paired with Byfuglien. Being RH doesn't mean he (or someone else) can't play the left side. He's a key member of their defense, and with their age I don't think they'd give him up without someone to fill his spot. Sure, they might rather have a lefty, but it'd be pretty hard to find anyone available as valuable as Hamonic.


I didn't realize how far out they were, so maybe Q isn't a good fit. Smith maybe a little better. 

In Topic: 2016 Trade Deadline Thread

10 February 2016 - 01:03 PM

With Winnipeg re-signing Byfuglien, there is some talk about Trouba potentially being available. They have Byfuglien and Meyers locked up long term as their 1-2 punch on the right side. Trouba is an RFA at the end of this season, will be looking for a raise, and likely wants more than 3rd line minutes, so it's possible Cheveldayoff could try to move him now...


Holland should be all over this... I really have no idea how to gauge trades these days. Seems like some players are going for more than I would have expected, but more often than not, players are going for a lot less than I would have expected... Would Nyquist, Ouellet and a 1st get it done? Any way to get this done without including Mantha? I probably would if that were the sticking point, but I'd rather center the trade around Nyquist...


DeKeyser - Trouba as our top pair going forward...

Trouba is 3rd in ice time, and their top PKer. He may be too expensive for them, reportedly looking for $56M over 8 yrs, but I'm sure they'd be looking for someone who could fill his spot right away. Plus, with Buffy, Enstrom, and Stuart all over 30, they probably want some youth too, though they do have Morrissey in the system. 


Trouba for Hamonic makes almost too much sense. Similar players, Hamonic is still young and signed for 4 more years very cheap. Isles lose the cost-certainty, but get a younger player who may still take another step forward, and get rid of a player who's asked for a trade. 


But if they're confident Morrissey is close, and want to improve up front, your deal isn't bad. Maybe throw in Q to fill the short term hole.

In Topic: ROY according to LGW

08 February 2016 - 01:02 PM

Most good players have gone a really good runs before, but you can't cherry pick a portion of a season and suggest this isn't new territory for Kane.  Fact is, he's never produced at this level for this long.  Now, I think he may be trailing off a bit though, so we'll see (Pretty sure Crosby has matched him or out-produced him over the past 30 games).


Speaking of Crosby, he had a stretch of 25-30 games several years ago where he produced well over 2ppg.  If he were to put up 160pts in a season, I would suggest that would be entirely new territory, never produced at that level before...even though he would have over stretches.

I don't know that you can really say 40 games is cherry picking, especially not when it comprised most of his season from last year and you're comparing it to 56 games this year. Sure, if it was something from a few years ago, and then he settled back down to normal, it might be different. Or if he finishes this year with ~110+ pts I'd say it's another step up even from last year. But right now, I'd have to say his offensive elevation started mid-November last year.