That's literally what he said. Take it up with him.
No, that's how you're interpreting it. Right?
@WTFMAN99
We don't need to downgrade on one of our best players to improve other areas. We just need to do better at finding effective and efficient players in those other areas. We don't have players to re-sign that require losing Marner.
Also, Marner brings offensive and defensive impacts in all situations. Whatever other area you're trying to improve would be simultaneously hurt by losing Marner.
Isn't this what they've been doing since 2019? It hasn't really worked, has it?
Part of the reason there are no players to re-sign is that they haven't been able to keep any of their depth over the last 3-5 years; it's the near-constant rotation of middle and bottom 6 players, and the same goes for the defence all while not actually being good enough to go far in the spring.
It's not ridiculous to say that keeping this roster construction with a three headed cap hydra is a concession in itself because you just can't fill the rest of the team as best as you could, yet this NBA "stars over anything" mentality still persists; why? We've had no success with it.
Colorado has changed, and they've actually won something...
That's not enough information to determine that. Cherry picking the point type least relevant to a player's playstyle over a cherry picked time frame without any context behind that production or consideration for anything outside of production is a poor way to evaluate their performance.
It's not cherry-picking when he makes as much as he does. He gets paid what he does to produce points, and he's a 90-point scorer, as you've pointed out.
If he wants to be paid like Rantanen, then produce and have success like he has.
I didn't inflate anything. I noted 4 different ways to look at Marner's production level, and every single one was greater than 90 points. I also applied the exact same method to each side, instead of the complete opposite methods the other individual attempted.
The other individual was the one who first used pace, for the record, and unlike me and the consistent 7 year pace that I looked at, he cherry picked an unrepresentative half-season sample. What you're interested in doesn't really matter. 90 points is objectively an underrepresentation of what Marner brings, especially considering how the other side was represented.
Well, kind of; by saying more than 90, you are inferring it's better than 90 when really he's only paced like that twice. 21-22 and this season. So, whether it's 90 or 96, it's more or less the same value.
90 is 90, and that's impressive, so it doesn't need to be glossed up.
It works in the NBA. No Goalie. He who shoots best under pressure wins.
I think people want a balanced team that plays solid 60mins and wins. The Stars are more for kids. You get over 30 yrs old and you stop seeing stars and start seeing the, but how do they help us win a cup part.
30 under buy most the merch though.
You do need star players; three at one position (for that much $) is the problem.
If we had drafted Werenski instead of Marner, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.
