It's really as if you are not reading or hearing what Hughes said today
Nope. You just seem to be misunderstanding it.
. Your point would be a fine point without Hughes comments. It would be a fair point if Hughes would have said that he liked our year and that the last 5 games showed that we were what he thought we were.
Nope. He was quite clear.
But for the love of me, I do not understand how you can disregard his ''before the 4 nations, we were thinking of selling, but after the 4 nations we decided to reward our players based on their play''.
Again, your selectively ignoring the context he made quite clear.
He HIMSELF makes the difference between before and after.
You know what else was before 4 nation's... Tremblant. Where he told the team the approach for the season, an approach that he kept consistent to before and.... gasp... after the 4 nations event. That approach culminated in a decision to "reward" the teams performance by not intentionally weakening the roster in the short term by selling current assets for futures.
Simple. Clear. Very obvious. Why you remain confused is quite odd.
Not me. He does. You choose to disregard it because you think, I guess that he misspoke or that there was more to it than what he said, while I'm going solely with his words.
Nope. You're twisting his words to fit a silly narrative...
By the way...yes, I,m not an idiot. I do know that if we would be 0-60 and that we would have won 5 games in a row, that Hughes would not have said...those last 5 games told me we had a great group. Was never my point.
So what is your point...lol
Yes, we have the points we have based on the rest of the year. But why did KH said seeing where we were before the 4-nations,
Because the season paused for two weeks and the team was in a tailspin going into that break. The likes of which, had it continued after the break, would've left us too far away from a playoff spot with only 20 games left to have a realistic chance of making the playoffs.
Again, it's all quite obvious and simple. I don't think you're an idiot, but you do seem unwilling or incapable of recognizing that 10 points is a considerable variance, regardless of when it occurs. The deadline was the only hard limit, the challenge put to the players was to be in the mix heading into it. Heading into the 4 nations, it didn't look like they would be. But rather than shut the door preemptively, he stuck to his pre-season commitment, and gave the players every opportunity to "earn" the "reward" he committed to back in September.
we started to think to sell if we actually really just 5 good games in a row to change his mind?
He "thought" the same thing all along... If the players keep themselves in striking distance of the playoffs, they wouldn't "sell".
The 5 games didn't "change" his approach, they, like the other 25 wins, informed it.
Oilers...I obviously don't have to tell you that the Oilers are still 2nd in their division. With really not a lot of competition there.
Right. So place in the standings matters.
Guess what, every single game up to today contributed to where the Habs are in the standings, and where we are in the standings informed what the team did, or didn't do, today.
Simple.
Clear.
Obvious.
Tkachuk's comments? Yeah, it sucks. Then, if Sens starts winning, he'll be the first one to embrace Cozens for his solid play. And will move on. If so, are you telling me that to keep Caufield happy, we have to resign Dvo on a 8-year contract? I mean, if Dvo leaves, Caufield clearly will be devastated.
?
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for you, or how you draw these odd conclusions, but either way I think we've tapped this one out.
I think your point is misguided and poorly reasoned, even though I do agree with the preference to add depth players vs standing pat today. I don't have anything else to add. Cheers
