If anyone wants some insight into why Canes fans have made a big joke out of Skinner proposals, give this post a nice long read. Soak it in. Contemplate it. Look at the facts. After a while one realizes that legitimately zero of what this person said is true. It's a silly narrative.
The Skinner ignorance on this site is hilarious. People can't help themselves. They probably haven't watched a game Skinner has played, like ever.
I seriously can't even tell if this guy is joking. That's how silly it is.
Zero of what I said is true? So Rick DiPietro isn't injury prone?
Just for clarification, what criteria do you use to say a player in "injury prone"? Contrary to popular belief, Jeff Skinner has missed a grand total of 37 games due to injury over his 6 year NHL career. (he also missed 2 games for suspension and 1 for other non-injury reasons so he's missed 40 games total). Grabovski has missed significantly more than that in just the last 2 seasons alone. Dipietro has pretty much missed entire seasons.
The list could go on and on if you were using valid comparisons, but you aren't. Look, nobody is asking anyone to ignore Skinner's history, Canes fans are just asking people to get their facts straight and accurately represent the data rather just spouting off a popular narrative. Even your own characterization of Skinner's injury history is misleading at best. Let's stick with some facts:
Fact: Skinner has had 3 concussions early in his NHL career, nobody is debating that.
Fact: Skinner has played in ~92% of available games in his 6 year career. I don't want to spend time checking over all the data, but I bet that's better than average across all NHL players.
Fact: Skinner has missed only 37 games over 6 years due to injury.
Opinion and concern: (but not fact) is that because of those concussions, he's more susceptible to having a severe concussion than other players. That may or may not be true, but it is a valid concern.
But instead of sticking with facts, stating concerns, and portraying it accurately, what we constantly see in every trade proposal is that he is "injury prone" and "1 hit away from retirement" and "not the same since his concussions" (even though he's had a 33G and 28G season since) by fans of other teams.
Nobody - and I mean nobody - is more injury prone than DiPietro. Let me get that right off the bat.
I get that it's frustrating to constantly have other fanbases devalue your players, but it happens to everyone:
- Tavares is leaving the Islanders when his contract expires, so he has no value.
- Hamonic is an overrated #4.
- Dal Colle is a bust.
- Strome is a bust.
- Nelson is a bust.
- Lee is a bust.
- Barzal has potential, him + 1st would probably land someone like Scott Hartnell.
- Leddy is intriguing, but you'd have to package him with Barzal, Dal Colle and a 1st to maybe get your hands on a "real" top pairing defenseman.
- Mayfield is a career AHLer.
- Boychuk will be one of the worst contracts in the league in a few years.
- Ladd will be one of the other worst contracts in the league in a few years.
etc etc. I could do this for literally every single Islanders player, tell you the exact line other fanbases use to devalue our players and justify why we need to package 3-5 assets together to get their utterly perfect players. For example, a couple weeks before the trade deadline I was told, by Hurricanes fans, that Barzal+1st would be the starting point for us to get Eric Staal. True story.
Skinner is an injury risk for further concussions, just as Okposo is an injury risk for further retina problems and Stamkos is an injury risk for further blood clot problems. It doesn't torpedo the value of the player where they're worth a conditional 6th, nor does it guarantee those players won't play the full 82 next season. But the chance of a big hit potentially ending Skinner's career is 100% something you have to consider when trading for him.
") but if other injury-prone players (even if they are significantly more injury-prone) take a massive hit in value, why doesn't Skinner?
