GDT: 2022 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,560
2,675
There's no reason to think we've necessarily moved on from them. The point was not to lose them for nothing, not that they weren't welcome here anymore.
Murray knew what their contract expectations were - and Verbeek chose not to negotiated with Manson. That tells you a lot. I think Rakell, Manson and Lindholm were all viewed as part of a failed core - Murray made several comments to that effect (they didn't elevate their games).


But it turns out we could use someone like Manson on the roster, so...

We could use Gudbranson (or equivalent) more than Manson. At this point, Manson is a 4/5. I'd rather have Gudbranson (or someone like him) for less money and less term than an injury prone and declining Manson. Gudbranson is a nearly perfect bottom pair d-man for a team lacking size and toughness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smirnov2Chistov
Jan 21, 2011
5,548
4,220
Massachusetts
Murray knew what their contract expectations were - and Verbeek chose not to negotiated with Manson. That tells you a lot. I think Rakell, Manson and Lindholm were all viewed as part of a failed core - Murray made several comments to that effect (they didn't elevate their games).

that is probably the best way of putting it. The three of them were a failed core.
 

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,163
4,164
Orange, CA
Murray knew what their contract expectations were - and Verbeek chose not to negotiated with Manson. That tells you a lot. I think Rakell, Manson and Lindholm were all viewed as part of a failed core - Murray made several comments to that effect (they didn't elevate their games).




We could use Gudbranson (or equivalent) more than Manson. At this point, Manson is a 4/5. I'd rather have Gudbranson (or someone like him) for less money and less term than an injury prone and declining Manson. Gudbranson is a nearly perfect bottom pair d-man for a team lacking size and toughness.
I don't mind Guds but let's be honest. Who ever we get to fill the RSD hole isn't going to be playing 3rd pair minutes.
 

Mr Rogers

Registered User
Jul 11, 2010
20,236
9,684
Calgary
Murray knew what their contract expectations were - and Verbeek chose not to negotiated with Manson. That tells you a lot. I think Rakell, Manson and Lindholm were all viewed as part of a failed core - Murray made several comments to that effect (they didn't elevate their games).
I do think that part of the reason they didn’t succeed is that they are all kind of complimentary pieces. Hampus is the closest to not being that, but he still is IMO
 

FiveHoleTickler

Registered User
Sponsor
Sep 21, 2018
3,817
6,051
I do think that part of the reason they didn’t succeed is that they are all kind of complimentary pieces. Hampus is the closest to not being that, but he still is IMO
Agree. Murray's expectations were ridiculous. None of those guys were ever going to elevate their games enough to be considered core pieces no matter how much Murray complained about it to the media. And it's not their fault. Like you said, they're much closer to complimentary pieces than core pieces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Rogers

duckpuck

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 10, 2007
2,560
2,675
Agree. Murray's expectations were ridiculous. None of those guys were ever going to elevate their games enough to be considered core pieces no matter how much Murray complained about it to the media. And it's not their fault. Like you said, they're much closer to complimentary pieces than core pieces.

Rakell's game fell off massively and at times it seemed to be effort/dedication. When he was scoring 30 goals, he sure seemed like a core guy. But then he fell off a cliff. Too much of a passenger.

For Lindholm, I think absent injury he is absolutely a core piece. A top shutdown guy even today. A great guy by all accounts, but too quiet to be a locker room leader it seems.

Manson is not a core piece unless you consider "intangibles" - and even then I don't think he is. Then add the injuries and drop off in his game. He's got value on a good team that's looking to compete for a cup - not so much on a rebuilding team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FiveHoleTickler

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,185
13,199
Tampas PK might just cost them a third straight cup. It’s been brutal all series.
 

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,185
13,199
Same can be said for Cols goaltending.

True. But I have higher expectations for Tampas PK than I do the Avs goalies.

Wonder if they lose if they would be willing to part with Newhook for Gibson. That could benefit us a lot.
 

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,163
4,164
Orange, CA
True. But I have higher expectations for Tampas PK than I do the Avs goalies.

Wonder if they lose if they would be willing to part with Newhook for Gibson. That could benefit us a lot.
Sure but I mean. I think they said Col had like a 50% on the PP all playoffs.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad