A backup and a bottom 4 D (that we hope is middle pairing) are the hope you are holding onto? Once again, it is all up to the core.
Treliving hasn't changed anything, the team is the same as before, what is there to praise?
Quote where I said Treliving's changes are the "hope I'm holding onto"?
The context is your claimed reasons for outrage vs my criticism that sees your criticism as outsized and disproportionate to your claim that there's nothing to praise.
I see you mention nothing by way of alternative options, nothing by way of Treliving's plainly and patently obvious upgrades in coaching and nothing that explains why Tanev, OEL and Stolarz (and Hankapaa) aren't reason for some optimism against Dubas's previous construction.
A cursory review of interviews and articles sees at least some optimism that Anthony Stolarz might be a possible starter solution, and that he was instrumental in maintaining the Panthers' integrity when Bobrovsky floundered.
Tanev, by all accounts is being received as precisely the type of defenseman that will transform the character of our defense. To say nothing of OEL's apparent value and transformation to a very efficient all-around defenseman who can run a power play.
If the core is the basis by which all of our hope is tethered to, it's logical to be optimistic to solutions provided to support pieces. In fact, that's the only place where hope can be applied, relational to the core.
The finer point is, he's not done. But for what he's managed to do, he's done a great job in identifying support needs, with two Stanely Cup champions no less.
Everyone with a modicum of sense and awareness about our situation knows and understands that Treliving's biggest window to affect change is next summer when contracts come off the books (if they're not extended).
I'm fine with keeping the group together if there are no other options.
Just not sure what there is to praise.
There is no argument, positive or negative, without invoking the core as fundamental to any possible success. It's not your argument in this argument or any argument about the possibilities of success for this club during the Matthews era.
You...understand that distinction, don't you?
Now what you don't apparently understand is that because the success is locked into the core's ability to push through the first round and beyond, having outrage at support pieces is nonsensical given the table set before ANY manager following Kyle Dubas' mess.
Upgraded? Have you seen Dallas' drafting outside of the top of the draft? I am not convinced it is an upgrade. I also don't care to discuss drafts from 15 years ago in Detroit, would like to see some recent success.
Within the first two rounds, Dallas drafted well, outside of that, they are terrible.
If you stare at your two paragraphs above long enough (and a few above), like hidden pictures in pictures, you'll see that not being able to see an upgrade from Wes Clark to Mark Leach is again, nonsensical.
You don't care about drafts 15 years ago? Fine. Omit whatever material evidence you dislike to your heart's content. But the skinny is this: Much of Detroit's success was attributed to Jim Nill's contribution. And that's from hockey minds like Scotty Bowman and Jim Devellano. Feel free to disregard their opinions and their historical hockey success as well. No slight taken.
But the finer point is, Jim Nill's first selection when moving from Detroit to Dallas was Mark Leach. Mark Leach, like Jim Nill, has Cups (plural) from Detroit. The Dallas Stars have (since 2013) haven't qualified for the playoffs three times, lost in the first round twice, the second round twice, lost in the Conference Finals twice (these last two years) and lost in the Stanely Cup Final once.
Mindful of Wes Clark's associated successes, what do you define as upgrade?
I am outraged by your lack of hockey knowledge currently, outside of that, I am just surprised how many are praising someone who is continuing Dubas' ways.
My lack of hockey knowledge "currently" is the reason you're outraged now?
LOL...So your reasons for outraged changes post to post and reason to reason? And on top of that you provide zero identified solutions you know to a certitude existed when Treliving and Co. began and finished their negotiations.
But the best thing about this interchange is, outside of your changed reason for outrage, you surprised there isn't more outrage for other reasons?
Is it a jump to say, perhaps you're more of a fan of being outraged than you are the club?
I hear knowledge is power. I suspect if you dug deeper trenches for your mind and filled your well of emotions with the excess, you'd be rationally pleased with an eye of optimism for the future. At worst, you wouldn't be indiscriminately outraged.
