The Red Helmet
Registered User
- Dec 19, 2007
- 2,340
- 1,396
The season is already off the rails and the wreckage is strewn all over the place so what even is the point?I think Girgensons is just here to help keep things on the rails through the end of the season. Both on ice, as a responsible "center" and in the room. Disappearing Okie, EJ, and Girgs all at once wouldn't have been a responsible changing of the leadership guard imo.
This ain't wreckage. In the wrecked minds of our fanbase it may appear as wreckage, but it isn't. Wreckage is ten game losing streaks, guys sniping at each other in the media, guys fighting each other at the bar, interpersonal problems that last for a long time. And avoiding that is important to next season (which is scheduled to take place, despite this board's wishes).The season is already off the rails and the wreckage is strewn all over the place so what even is the point?
“Content sub-mediocrity” might be a more apt termThis ain't wreckage. In the wrecked minds of our fanbase it may appear as wreckage, but it isn't. Wreckage is ten game losing streaks, guys sniping at each other in the media, guys fighting each other at the bar, interpersonal problems that last for a long time. And avoiding that is important to next season (which is scheduled to take place, despite this board's wishes).
His strategy was okay, he just picked a bunch of a-holes.Tim Murray was the poster child for "Red Flag" shopper, and his dysfunctional locker room and team broke the first rebuild attempt.
This ain't wreckage. In the wrecked minds of our fanbase it may appear as wreckage, but it isn't. Wreckage is ten game losing streaks, guys sniping at each other in the media, guys fighting each other at the bar, interpersonal problems that last for a long time. And avoiding that is important to next season (which is scheduled to take place, despite this board's wishes).
Yes, because Girgensons is too important to the fabric of the team.Did Adams say why he didn’t move Girgensons?
It was Laughton, I'd bet. Probably just Philly wouldn't come .down on price.Anyone think the "veteran center" Adams tried to get was Zegras? I know there was some smoke about that over the summer.
Or any other guesses?
Duh. He totally slipped my mind.It was Laughton, I'd bet. Probably just Philly wouldn't come .down on price.
Hertl going to Vegas.
Do some of you get it yet that teams don’t care about the cap. They upgrade and worry about it after.
It’s maddening reading posters worrying about RFA contracts down the road in here.
We’re f***ed if our front office is worried about it.
Players want to go to winning teams. Florida was a joke where players got retirement contracts for nearly 20 years. They're well run and win - the other parts are just gravy. If Vegas was a shit stain on the ice, players wouldn't be interested in going there. It's not the weather or taxes that make the difference, it's winning.
I admire the loyalty. He'd rather sink with the ship than live and watch her fall to the abyss. It's reminiscent of the captain standing by the fire in the Titanic movie.I feel like it's not fair to keep Gus around for more of this.
1. AgreeCouple random, unconnected takes:
1) Their best prospect not named Benson/Levi is Savoie.
2) They should trade their 24 1st for help now, even if they win the lotto
3) Mitts took 6 years to become what he is now. Give Krebs time.
Yes, because Girgensons is too important to the fabric of the team.
It was Laughton, I'd bet. Probably just Philly wouldn't come .down on price.
Couple random, unconnected takes:
1) Their best prospect not named Benson/Levi is Savoie.
2) They should trade their 24 1st for help now, even if they win the lotto
3) Mitts took 6 years to become what he is now. Give Krebs time.
And now the Sharks can't retain next season (Hertl, Karlsson, Burns).Laughton was someone a few places talked up as a possible match for Buffalo. There was also that random thing about Couture which seemed like it would go nowhere since they would have had to retain... but the Sharks just did for Hertl until 2027.
And now the Sharks can't retain next season (Hertl, Karlsson, Burns).
I also don't understand why some fans (you know who you are) think there are only two choices:
1) Trade a player before his contract is up, or
2) Sign a long term contract and assume that you're stuck with him until he retires or dies
I don't want to wait for another key guy's development. I'm already expecting years before savoie and benson are fully formed.Laughton was someone a few places talked up as a possible match for Buffalo. There was also that random thing about Couture which seemed like it would go nowhere since they would have had to retain... but the Sharks just did for Hertl until 2027.
If they traded their 1st and it was the winning lottery ticket for Celebrini, that would be foolish. That kid is for real.
I don't want to wait for another key guy's development. I'm already expecting years before savoie and benson are fully formed.
I'd rather get something now, and I imagine the value of moving a 1OA pick would be huge.
Couple random, unconnected takes:
1) Their best prospect not named Benson/Levi is Savoie.
2) They should trade their 24 1st for help now, even if they win the lotto
3) Mitts took 6 years to become what he is now. Give Krebs time.
Couple random, unconnected takes:
1) Their best prospect not named Benson/Levi is Savoie.
2) They should trade their 24 1st for help now, even if they win the lotto
3) Mitts took 6 years to become what he is now. Give Krebs time.