Miscellaneous NHL Discussion LXXXVI: 86 Proof

[LegionOfDoom91]

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Fedorov with the Nike equipment back in the day was sweet. The white Nike skates.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

Of course, that is the goal. Yes I want every player on my team to be a good player and be a complete player with 100% compete 100% of the time and no mental lapses, etc. But it is unrealistic. I am sure you can go through the roster of Cup teams from the past few years and find a few "specialists" in whatever position they are in (e.g., offensive first/no defense defensemen, defense first/no offense defensemen, power forwards who aren't great skaters or defenders but play well in the offensive zone in front of the net and around the boards, and so forth and so on).

Again, yes the goal is to have complete players everywhere, but that is not realistic. Not every player needs to be the best skater, shooter, passer, defender, etc. Would be great if they were but sometimes you need to make a choice: do I want the guy I think can be a power play specialist and net-front presence who will rack up PP points and dirty but good goals, or do I want the guy who won't create as many goals but will be better defensively and on the rush? Probably depends on the makeup of the team already, but if you have a team of fast skating small guys, you may be great on the rush or creating scoring chances, but without that big net-front presence you may not have the guy that can bang home the rebound. If you have a team of giant slow-moving net-front power forwards, you probably won't be able to create a lot of offense on the rush. And so forth and so on.

I didn't say I want a roster of complete players, you aren't understanding me. I know that isn't possible and it isn't what I expect. I said I want ever roster player to be a net positive. That can be through what ever combination of skill that player has. If they produce more then they give up, either by creating offense, possession, or suppressing chances. If my team of speedy forwards is a net positive without a net front presence then I don't feel the need to find a net front presence, if my team is so overwhelming on the board and in front of of net that we constantly out produce teams then I dont feel the need to get a speedy winger.

Those ideas of needing to find players that "fits a role" has been proven more or less antiquated at this point. All that matters is overall impact. If they have defincieies in other areas, fine, along as their positives outway their negatives.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

10/10...^^^^

 

[deadhead]

Those ideas of needing to find players that "fits a role" has been proven more or less antiquated at this point. All that matters is overall impact. If they have defincieies in other areas, fine, along as their positives outway their negatives.

If it's so antiquated, why did TB go out and get a lot of big defensemen and forechecking forwards, while the Avs went out and got bottom six players with limited skills who could forecheck.

Maybe it's about balance? Given the cap, and different matchups, having skilled people in the bottom six who aren't quite top six scorers but can't do much else (PK, forecheck, etc) is a net liability? That is, if you have elite scorers, maybe you want to balance them with players with complementary skills instead of inferior versions of what you already have.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

 

[Deadpool8812]

Fedorov with the Nike equipment back in the day was sweet. The white Nike skates.

I had those gloves back when I was in pee wee. Most comfortable gloves I've ever worn. Nike had some of the best hockey gear back in the late 90s and early 2000s. I also rocked Nike Ignite skates for a couple years, which were also really comfortable and easy to wear.

 

[Rebels57]

Fedorov with the Nike equipment back in the day was sweet. The white Nike skates.

My friend had the skates and I had the black version of those gloves.

 

[FLYguy3911]

I got chirped for wearing the white skates in peewee.

 

[DrinkFightFlyers]

I didn't say I want a roster of complete players, you aren't understanding me. I know that isn't possible and it isn't what I expect. I said I want ever roster player to be a net positive. That can be through what ever combination of skill that player has. If they produce more then they give up, either by creating offense, possession, or suppressing chances. If my team of speedy forwards is a net positive without a net front presence then I don't feel the need to find a net front presence, if my team is so overwhelming on the board and in front of of net that we constantly out produce teams then I dont feel the need to get a speedy winger.

Those ideas of needing to find players that "fits a role" has been proven more or less antiquated at this point. All that matters is overall impact. If they have defincieies in other areas, fine, along as their positives outway their negatives.

I get thay completely, it's the same thing. You want good players. We all do. But you can't just look at things in a vacuum. If you look at the skillset of a player by himself it doesn't tell the whole picture. It isn't looking at a roster with 23 blanks and filling it in with certain roles. No one is arguing for that and no one is doing that. But if you donyhave a net front presence, or stay at home defenseman, or offense only player, it will likely show up in the game and in the box score. So you may acquire a player that in a vacuum is not a good or meaningful piece, but on a given team fills a need. Yes ideally you fill that need with a guy that does MORE than just one thing, but that isn't always an option. And yes ideally if you can't get a multifaceted guy you get the best guy that does that specific thing, but that isn't an option either.

And please do not misinterpret this as saying Chuck Fletcher is making good or necessary moves. He's not and he sucks. Just in general signing a one dimensional player isn't per se a bad thing.

 

[deadhead]

I get thay completely, it's the same thing. You want good players. We all do. But you can't just look at things in a vacuum. If you look at the skillset of a player by himself it doesn't tell the whole picture. It isn't looking at a roster with 23 blanks and filling it in with certain roles. No one is arguing for that and no one is doing that. But if you donyhave a net front presence, or stay at home defenseman, or offense only player, it will likely show up in the game and in the box score. So you may acquire a player that in a vacuum is not a good or meaningful piece, but on a given team fills a need. Yes ideally you fill that need with a guy that does MORE than just one thing, but that isn't always an option. And yes ideally if you can't get a multifaceted guy you get the best guy that does that specific thing, but that isn't an option either.

And please do not misinterpret this as saying Chuck Fletcher is making good or necessary moves. He's not and he sucks. Just in general signing a one dimensional player isn't per se a bad thing.

Yep. You always want to upgrade, but sometimes you have to make short-term compromises.

If Allison could stay healthy, MacEwen would never sniff PT, anything MacEwen does (other than maybe fighting, but Allison is no pushover) Allison can do better and a lot more. But a healthy Allison would be a temporary fix at 4RW, b/c either you promote him to the top 9 or he'll be looking to leave ASAP.

Foerster would also be a big upgrade, but he's coming off an injury filled season and needs some AHL time.
But same thing, he won't be the 4RW for very long.

So for some roles, the best player isn't the best fit in the long run, due to cap/morale issues.
So you want an upgrade over MacEwen, but one that fits that 4th line role, who won't bitch about being blocked, hopefully someone who is also a top PK guy, but who won't cost $3M a year.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

I got chirped for wearing the white skates in peewee.

And rightfully so.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

I get thay completely, it's the same thing. You want good players. We all do. But you can't just look at things in a vacuum. If you look at the skillset of a player by himself it doesn't tell the whole picture. It isn't looking at a roster with 23 blanks and filling it in with certain roles. No one is arguing for that and no one is doing that. But if you donyhave a net front presence, or stay at home defenseman, or offense only player, it will likely show up in the game and in the box score. So you may acquire a player that in a vacuum is not a good or meaningful piece, but on a given team fills a need. Yes ideally you fill that need with a guy that does MORE than just one thing, but that isn't always an option. And yes ideally if you can't get a multifaceted guy you get the best guy that does that specific thing, but that isn't an option either.

And please do not misinterpret this as saying Chuck Fletcher is making good or necessary moves. He's not and he sucks. Just in general signing a one dimensional player isn't per se a bad thing.

I haven't said anything about your thoughts on Fletcher or his player acquisition. I haven't said anywhere that getting one dimensional players is bad. I'm saying they can be one dimension as long as they have a positive net impact.

I'm saying don't go get a "net front presence guy" (or what ever other "type of guy") if he doesn't have a positive net impact.

That's literally all I'm saying.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

Yep. You always want to upgrade, but sometimes you have to make short-term compromises.

If Allison could stay healthy, MacEwen would never sniff PT, anything MacEwen does (other than maybe fighting, but Allison is no pushover) Allison can do better and a lot more. But a healthy Allison would be a temporary fix at 4RW, b/c either you promote him to the top 9 or he'll be looking to leave ASAP.

Foerster would also be a big upgrade, but he's coming off an injury filled season and needs some AHL time.
But same thing, he won't be the 4RW for very long.

So for some roles, the best player isn't the best fit in the long run, due to cap/morale issues.
So you want an upgrade over MacEwen, but one that fits that 4th line role, who won't bitch about being blocked, hopefully someone who is also a top PK guy, but who won't cost $3M a year.

Almost anyone in the system right now is an upgrade over ZM. They have numerus options that they will choose not to play. Clearly you can see this. Shit give me Sandin on the 4th line.

There was zero reason to bring back ZM. Sadly in the Flyers warped mind there was a they still think that he can help. If you want that type of player then go get someone who is better at it.

Nic D. Based on the direction they are taking and the player they want he is fine for the 4th line. Taking that direction and wanting that type of player is the issue.

 

[Tripod]

"You always want to upgrade", except when you waive Ghost to play Posser his last 6 NHL games of his career.

Or waive NAK to play Willman

Or use Ghost's $ on a worse Dman in Risto

Or buyout Lindblom so you can sign Deslauriers for years

Or sign and play Stewart the last games of his career

Or sign a 3rd pairing dman and guarantee him he won't be benched

Or tell your best player you don't want him back next year and use his money on a racist

Or play multiple Dmen at forward when you don't have to

Or be on your 5th coach in less than 4 years

Or add Nate Thompson to your team not once, but 2 times in 3 years when he was shit the 1st time

Or throwing away draft picks like used chewing gum

Etc....


Death by a 1000 cuts.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

"You always want to upgrade", except when you waive Ghost to play Posser his last 6 NHL games of his career.

Or waive NAK to play Willman

Or use Ghost's $ on a worse Dman in Risto

Or buyout Lindblom so you can sign Deslauriers for years

Or sign and play Stewart the last games of his career

Or sign a 3rd pairing dman and guarantee him he won't be benched

Or tell your best player you don't want him back next year and use his money on a racist

Or play multiple Dmen at forward when you don't have to

Or be on your 5th coach in less than 4 years

Or add Nate Thompson to your team not once, but 2 times in 3 years when he was shit the 1st time

Or throwing away draft picks like used chewing gum

Etc....


Death by a 1000 cuts.

Was that the case or was it him saying I am not giving you a handshake ext at the terms you want? Do you know what Giroux was asking for at that time?

You people want to tank and get high picks yet bitter that Giroux wont be back.

Still pushing the Tony D racist mantra as well. Makes the day go by faster.

 

[BernieParent]

"You always want to upgrade", except when you waive Ghost to play Posser his last 6 NHL games of his career.

Or waive NAK to play Willman

Or use Ghost's $ on a worse Dman in Risto

Or buyout Lindblom so you can sign Deslauriers for years

Or sign and play Stewart the last games of his career

Or sign a 3rd pairing dman and guarantee him he won't be benched

Or tell your best player you don't want him back next year and use his money on a racist

Or play multiple Dmen at forward when you don't have to

Or be on your 5th coach in less than 4 years

Or add Nate Thompson to your team not once, but 2 times in 3 years when he was shit the 1st time

Or throwing away draft picks like used chewing gum

Etc....


Death by a 1000 cuts.

"Upgrade" is contingent on the base grade, and it is obvious that the Flyers FO is looking at the wrong Teacher's Version of the test. Just incredible that in the year 2022, Chuck Fletcher put his offseason focus on getting closer to the BSBs.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I get thay completely, it's the same thing. You want good players. We all do. But you can't just look at things in a vacuum. If you look at the skillset of a player by himself it doesn't tell the whole picture. It isn't looking at a roster with 23 blanks and filling it in with certain roles. No one is arguing for that and no one is doing that. But if you donyhave a net front presence, or stay at home defenseman, or offense only player, it will likely show up in the game and in the box score. So you may acquire a player that in a vacuum is not a good or meaningful piece, but on a given team fills a need. Yes ideally you fill that need with a guy that does MORE than just one thing, but that isn't always an option. And yes ideally if you can't get a multifaceted guy you get the best guy that does that specific thing, but that isn't an option either.

And please do not misinterpret this as saying Chuck Fletcher is making good or necessary moves. He's not and he sucks. Just in general signing a one dimensional player isn't per se a bad thing.

Nah, you can go without those players as long as your team is still overall really good. You do not need those highly specific roles.

Now, very generalized roles are quite important. Like having a 1C and 1D.

 

[Tripod]

Was that the case or was it him saying I am not giving you a handshake ext at the terms you want? Do you know what Giroux was asking for at that time?

You people want to tank and get high picks yet bitter that Giroux wont be back.

Still pushing the Tony D racist mantra as well. Makes the day go by faster.

Fletch completely closed be door to G coming back. To a team that Fletch is TRYING to compete with. If Fletch said no to him coming back AND sold off vets for picks and youth AND really was trything to rebuild, few would have an issue.

"You people"? No, we just want a competent GM who has a plan and makes more good moves than he makes bad. Instead, we have one that mostly makes bad. Trading a 1st for Risto and re-signing him, trading for ADA, signing Deslauriers are all moves Fletch made to try and be better and win now. But yet would not bring back their best 1/2 players to be better. Would not trade a 1st for JG to be better. You can't see the inconsistencies?

"YOU PEOPLE".....deserve this shit team. You deserve Fletch. Enjoy it.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

Fletch completely closed be door to G coming back. To a team that Fletch is TRYING to compete with. If Fletch said no to him coming back AND sold off vets for picks and youth AND really was trything to rebuild, few would have an issue.

"You people"? No, we just want a competent GM who has a plan and makes more good moves than he makes bad. Trading a 1st for Risto and re-signing him, trading for ADA, signing Deslauriers are all moves Fletch made to try and be better and win now. But yet would not bring back their best 1/2 players to be better. Would not trade a 1st for JG to be better. You can't see the inconsistencies?

"YOU PEOPLE".....deserve this shit team. You deserve Fletch. Enjoy it.

Here is the thing, you have no idea what Giroux was asking for at the time. None. So to crucify the GM in this case is just incorrect. Unless someone has the details he was right in not caving in at that time.

I have no idea nor do you how the conversation went though to say Fletcher closed the door on his return is also just pure speculation.

Funny you think I like Fletcher. Or possibly think I believe he is a good GM.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Here is the thing, you have no idea what Giroux was asking for at the time. None. So to crucify the GM in this case is just incorrect. Unless someone has the details he was right in not caving in at that time.

I have no idea nor do you how the conversation went though to say Fletcher closed the door on his return is also just pure speculation.

Funny you think I like Fletcher. Or possibly think I believe he is a good GM.

Whatever Giroux was asking is more valuable than TDA and Deslauriers for a team trying to compete right now

 

[Lotusflower]

Dustin Brown gets a statue outside the Arena Formerly Known As Staples Center....

.....before Kobe . I bet 80% of LA residents couldnt even pick him out of a lineup.

 

[Don Nachbaur 26]

Dustin Brown gets a statue outside the Arena Formerly Known As Staples Center....

.....before Kobe . I bet 80% of LA residents couldnt even pick him out of a lineup.

Wonder what Sean Avery has to say about that.

 

[deadhead]

Fletch completely closed be door to G coming back. To a team that Fletch is TRYING to compete with. If Fletch said no to him coming back AND sold off vets for picks and youth AND really was trything to rebuild, few would have an issue.

"You people"? No, we just want a competent GM who has a plan and makes more good moves than he makes bad. Instead, we have one that mostly makes bad. Trading a 1st for Risto and re-signing him, trading for ADA, signing Deslauriers are all moves Fletch made to try and be better and win now. But yet would not bring back their best 1/2 players to be better. Would not trade a 1st for JG to be better. You can't see the inconsistencies?

"YOU PEOPLE".....deserve this shit team. You deserve Fletch. Enjoy it.

Apples and oranges.

Dislauriers is less a win now than set the tone of the clubhouse move (he's not moving the needle), now I question whether that's really needed . . . Braun makes more sense b/c with Ellis out there is no veteran leadership on defense.

TDA is a huge gamble, he has Norris trophy upside and Chernobyl meltdown downside. But he's 27, he's certainly part of the future if he's really turned his life around.

Giroux is 35, he simply makes no sense for this team, especially at $7M, neither does JVR and he's headed out the door.

Atkinson makes sense this year because he can help with the adjustment to Torts (sure players are picking his brains), but should be moved next summer.

JG was the right player at the wrong time, that is, if the FLyers had chosen to reload after 2018-19, they'd have been on the cusp of competing for the Cup, and JG would have been the final piece, but Holmgren choose "win now" and here we are. JG made no sense for this team at 29 and a 7x10 contract.

They are stumbling into a rebuild because I think if they actually say the word they'll all turn into pumpkins.

 

[Flyerfan4life]

"You always want to upgrade", except when you waive Ghost to play Posser his last 6 NHL games of his career.

Or waive NAK to play Willman

Or use Ghost's $ on a worse Dman in Risto

Or buyout Lindblom so you can sign Deslauriers for years

Or sign and play Stewart the last games of his career

Or sign a 3rd pairing dman and guarantee him he won't be benched

Or tell your best player you don't want him back next year and use his money on a racist

Or play multiple Dmen at forward when you don't have to

Or be on your 5th coach in less than 4 years

Or add Nate Thompson to your team not once, but 2 times in 3 years when he was shit the 1st time

Or throwing away draft picks like used chewing gum

Etc....


Death by a 1000 cuts.

wins in the margins are for NERDSSS