Dude... please.
Newhook: 34 in 55 games last year. 51 point pace over 82. Age 22
Dach: 38 in 58 games two years ago 54 point pace over 82. Age 22
Roy: 9 points in 23 games last year. 32 point pace over 82. Age 20
A 2nd line that has a 32 ppg guy on it is not good
in the present.
That's a young group that has produced when healthy. And they did so at a young age.
That's not sufficient production
in the present. We have a bad team
in the present partially because these are our 2nd liners and this is their production.
I like Roy's potential and I've been keen to see him in the NHL. I don't think the Habs should avoid adding a physical middle6 player simply because Roy and his 32pt pace is on the roster. Dach has not shown he is a reliable player in terms of health. Newhook has not shown he can pierce through a certain scoring threshold (scoring/TOI).
In the present they would not be a 2nd line of a contending team. Adding a challenger for a spot on the top6 shouldn't be something our bad team with a bad roster should shy away from -- at the very least it will bump someone down to third line, which is a sign of good depth.
Again, I'm not sure how you don't see the depth at foward here. We have one of the deepest young groups in the league. Apart from the top six we have this year we've got Beck, Demidov and Hage coming up. None of those guys are over the age of 25. Please show me another team in the league with that kind of young forward depth.
So YES it's a good second line. One with a lot of upside to it.
Hage is years away, Beck is closer but no one expects him to be more than a middle6 player (valuable as that is, he is not projected to be a top line player), and Demidov is taken for granted -- once he joins and does as well as we hope he can do, we will see a 2nd line with one of Slaf or Caufield on it... now
that's a sign of good depth. You're basically taking the counting chickens thing and turbocharging it. We shouldn't be shy to add forward depth even if all our forwards are on track to improve -- injuries, contract disputes, and the inevitable 'hitting the wall' can all happen.
Now take a look at RD. What's our depth look like there?
At the NHL level it's no good but I don't think Barron moves the needle in the NHL much at all. He needs more AHL time and that means taking time from Mailloux and Reinbacher, both of whom are more relevant to the Habs' future and as valuable depth. Maybe if one of the other two makes the jump to the NHL... but then again that explicitly means they've lapped Barron.
Bad faith is claiming that all posters who disagree with your own (poor & ungrounded) take suffer from some psychological limitation (poverty mentality).
Worse though, is throwing that crap around and then crying foul when your bad take is called out as such. I thought you claimed you'd learned from such poor posting behavior after the Slaf debacle
I know what bad faith is:
Indeed. Hence why trades for the sake of trading is silly.
Bad faith: tilting against something I never argued.
A young player is moveable at any point.
No one I've seen has argued that Barron "can't" be moved. Why create a strawman?
There's been many arguments made that Barron should be retained on account of his untapped upside. That's the discussion.
As for strawman and bad faith... can you finally stop saying "trade for the sake of making a trade" or is that too much to ask?
Might want to check what most of Zito's 13 trades involved...
The relevance is to refute your notion that Hughes lacks the courage to make trades, either by volume or by quality of asset given up.
Your take isn't supported by the readily and easily accessible facts. So much so that it suggests either a bad faith argument or a complete lack of understanding of the very content of the argument... Bad take is a bad take.
I have not said or implied Hughes lacks courage or conviction, once again you're making a BS argument. Bad faith: citing the number of trades made by certain GMs and then immediately dismissing the number of trades as a relevant metric. Not bad faith though, is it?
