Toggle sidebar

Roster Building Thread IV (2019/2020)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
NYRFANMANI said:
Obviously there is no hard evidence whatsoever, because we'd have to travel to the future, but everything the kid has done, does suggest just that he is a superstar. You can call it faith if you want, but simply any metric regarding that, supports it so far.
Click to expand...
Neither you, nor I can read the future. Having faith that he will be a superstar is nothing more than hopes and dreams. We ALL have that. There are ZERO metrics (as you call him) that suggest that he is a superstar. His play in a tournament that was filled with not many NHL top players hardly suggest that he is ready to start to be in impact player.

I get wanting things. If wanting something so badly that without any basis whatsoever, you are declaring him a superstar, makes you happier, so be it. Myself, I prefer that there was something a bit more tangible than hopes and dreams.
 
Trxjw said:
He'll be the goalie that gets protected. Shesty is expansion exempt and Hank, if he's still here, will be a pending UFA so no protection is required.
Click to expand...

Right, I keep forgetting the year of the expansion draft!!! Actually works out perfectly. But will georgiev be a goalie if he continues to progress be a guy we can lock down for cheap as a back up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
Tawnos said:
That's not my camp. Penciling a player in is by definition something that's not set in stone.
Click to expand...
Sorry but did you not say you believe in "wait and see"? That is where I am. If you are not, then I misread your post.

In today's day and edge, when people throw out terms like "penciling him in", most use it as if "etched in stone". Hence my discussion with the other poster who is "penciling him in" and declaring him already a "superstar". Making such a declaration points to something that is in fact set in stone, no matter what number pencil you use.
 
True Blue said:
Sorry but did you not say you believe in "wait and see"? That is where I am. If you are not, then I misread your post.

In today's day and edge, when people throw out terms like "penciling him in", most use it as if "etched in stone". Hence my discussion with the other poster who is "penciling him in" and declaring him already a "superstar". Making such a declaration points to something that is in fact set in stone, no matter what number pencil you use.
Click to expand...

I do believe in wait and see. And I also believe Kakko should be penciled in on the top line and is a "superstar in the making." These are not mutually exclusive things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NYRFANMANI
Kupo said:
I can too seeing that the organization has a history of finding positions for ex-players.

On a more serious note, I think it's time you invest in a nice avatar.

I don't know what TRX stands for, so I naturally googled it. The results were shocking!

5024_3_.jpg


You must be a real Fitness guru!
Click to expand...

There's been talk over the years about what my username stands for. That's probably one of the better ones I've seen. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: FIRE DRURY
Yahoo89 said:
Right, I keep forgetting the year of the expansion draft!!! Actually works out perfectly. But will georgiev be a goalie if he continues to progress be a guy we can lock down for cheap as a back up?
Click to expand...

Well a lot of things can happen. Most of us think of Shesty as the heir apparent to Hank, but it could be Georgie for all we know. Goalies are so hard to project. Even the elite ones.

I think Georgiev will have arbitration rights at the end of his current deal, so that could be a little bit problematic for the Rangers if he has a breakout year and steals the starting role away from Hank. However that's a pretty big if at this point. Plus if that happens he could also end up as a valuable trade chip to fill a hole elsewhere.

All in all, I wouldn't worry about that whole situation too much.
 
Tawnos said:
I do believe in wait and see. And I also believe Kakko should be penciled in on the top line and is a "superstar in the making." These are not mutually exclusive things.
Click to expand...
Like I said, most people use the term synonymous with "etched in stone".

We can pencil in anyone for anything, if we want. We can also pencil in Kravstov as a superstar in the making. Fox can be penciled in as a future Norris winner. Why stop there? So too can Miller. Heck, half the defense can be penciled in as future stars. We can just lump in Robertson as well.

IMO, no one should be "penciled in for anything". If Kakko earns a spot on the top line, let him play there. No penciling involved. If Kakko does flash superstar potential, I will be happy to discuss that. But first can he even play a few games?

BTW, if sound snarky, I am not. Just going through the points.

Anyway, still, IMO it is far too early to declare him an instant impact player or a superstar in the making.
 
True Blue said:
Like I said, most people use the term synonymous with "etched in stone".

We can pencil in anyone for anything, if we want. We can also pencil in Kravstov as a superstar in the making. Fox can be penciled in as a future Norris winner. Why stop there? So too can Miller. Heck, half the defense can be penciled in as future stars. We can just lump in Robertson as well.

IMO, no one should be "penciled in for anything". If Kakko earns a spot on the top line, let him play there. No penciling involved. If Kakko does flash superstar potential, I will be happy to discuss that. But first can he even play a few games?

BTW, if sound snarky, I am not. Just going through the points.

Anyway, still, IMO it is far too early to declare him an instant impact player or a superstar in the making.
Click to expand...

You can repeat yourself, but it doesn't make it any more true. Most people do not do this.

And you don't pencil someone in as a superstar in the making. You pencil someone into a specific spot in the lineup.

Beyond that, a superstar in the making isn't the same thing as a guaranteed superstar.

It's like in your quest to make the point that no prospect is a sure thing, you've twisted the meaning of common phrases to mean what you want to argue against. It's not what people are saying. Even people who say things like Kakko has a 0.00001% chance of being Daigle or Berg don't mean there's that slim of a chance Kakko is more RNH than P.Kane. They're just saying that it's highly unlikely that he busts, which we should ALL agree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eco's bones and kovazub94
Harbour Dog said:
"Pencilled in" is practically the opposite of "etched in stone", though.

It's more like "tentatively".
Click to expand...
Yeah, we pencil someone in so that we can easily erase them. The literal definition of the phrase is to mark something down tentatively, or as subject to change.

I have no idea what the disagreement is here, just wanted to chime in to support this take. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barnaby, Amazing Kreiderman, Tawnos and 1 other person
Harbour Dog said:
"Pencilled in" is practically the opposite of "etched in stone", though.

It's more like "tentatively".
Click to expand...
Again, I understand the term. But I believe that most use the two terms as if they were synonymous. Also, when one is declared a super star in the making, that to me is more stone than paper.
 
Tawnos said:
You can repeat yourself, but it doesn't make it any more true. Most people do not do this.

And you don't pencil someone in as a superstar in the making. You pencil someone into a specific spot in the lineup.

Beyond that, a superstar in the making isn't the same thing as a guaranteed superstar.

It's like in your quest to make the point that no prospect is a sure thing, you've twisted the meaning of common phrases to mean what you want to argue against. It's not what people are saying. Even people who say things like Kakko has a 0.00001% chance of being Daigle or Berg don't mean there's that slim of a chance Kakko is more RNH than P.Kane. They're just saying that it's highly unlikely that he busts, which we should ALL agree with.
Click to expand...
That is fine, but my opinion will continue to be my opinion.

The poster that I was debating this with declared Kakko to be a superstar in the making. That does not sound like very much like "penciling", another term that was used.

Yes, I believe that is unlikely that he busts and we do ALL agree with that. After that, there is really no point in repeating myself again. I think the horse has been killed.
 
nyr2k2 said:
Yeah, we pencil someone in so that we can easily erase them. The literal definition of the phrase is to mark something down tentatively, or as subject to change.

I have no idea what the disagreement is here, just wanted to chime in to support this take. :laugh:
Click to expand...

In before the "Hockey really needs to start" comment haha
 
nyr2k2 said:
Yeah, we pencil someone in so that we can easily erase them. The literal definition of the phrase is to mark something down tentatively, or as subject to change.

I have no idea what the disagreement is here, just wanted to chime in to support this take. :laugh:
Click to expand...
I think, though I could be wrong, this all started with a debate on Rangers success for this year. One of the reasons for people to feel optimistic was that Kakko, who is a superstar in the making, is going to be an instant impact player. Think that was the genesis of where this train began to take off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2
nyr2k2 said:
Yeah, we pencil someone in so that we can easily erase them. The literal definition of the phrase is to mark something down tentatively, or as subject to change.

I have no idea what the disagreement is here, just wanted to chime in to support this take. :laugh:
Click to expand...
No golf pencils allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyr2k2
Trxjw said:
Well a lot of things can happen. Most of us think of Shesty as the heir apparent to Hank, but it could be Georgie for all we know. Goalies are so hard to project. Even the elite ones.

I think Georgiev will have arbitration rights at the end of his current deal, so that could be a little bit problematic for the Rangers if he has a breakout year and steals the starting role away from Hank. However that's a pretty big if at this point. Plus if that happens he could also end up as a valuable trade chip to fill a hole elsewhere.

All in all, I wouldn't worry about that whole situation too much.
Click to expand...

Yep solid points. I think he will get traded to be completely honest. I think he has worth and could see a Talbot-esq type situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trxjw
haohmaru said:
Who is that? Wade's Dad?
Click to expand...
No, the long lost better cousin.

Wade is supplying the whole family with dollars that he made by not marching into the GM's office to announce his retirement once his playing level deteriorated.
 
True Blue said:
No, the long lost better cousin.

Wade is supplying the whole family with dollars that he made by not marching into the GM's office to announce his retirement once his playing level deteriorated.
Click to expand...
I didn't think he made that much in Ottawa..
 
By the way are Tony and Lemieux skating with their teammates at informals right now? Everyone should be there skating right after Labor Day. If they’re not they’re already behind. This is starting to look very bad on the two of them. Sorry fellas but you haven’t done enough yet. You have zero leverage. Time to try and squeeze a few more nickels out if possible but You need to get on the ice and sign your QOs if need be. You aren’t the Marners of the world. You are virtual nobodies to everyone outside of this message board even if we know how good you can be.

Not to mention the 2 of them are on their third teams before their 24th bdays. It’s a bad bad look to piss this management staff off any further.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom