Thorner

Kinda, but also kinda another attempt at the shell game. the net is STILL much closer to Quinn to Rousek/Olofsson. Because it’s not just the gap from your 9th best F being replaced by 13: you have to add in the small differences between 5/6/7/8 in shuffling around. Even if small. Because that’s where you are attempting to launder value mysteriously in getting it to: “see! It’s just 9th spot to 13!” I explained this yesterday: *IF* there is truly no gap of note between 5/6/7/8/9, it comes to the same thing because if player 9 is negligibly different to player 5, you are still replacing a #5 like talent with #13 when you sub in 13 for 9. You are correct though in that any minutes we can simply lump onto, say, Peterka instead, as straight added ice time, represents a smaller downgrade for that portion of minutes

We aren’t set at forward. We are maybe, maybe, set at forward goals. The forwards on the team were a big part of the reason we gave up so many goals and finished 20th place. I’d look to goal differential for a more accurate reflection. Removing Quinn’s 200 foot capability and subbing in VO’s lack of such and his combination of goals, the one thing we don’t need, is a sure fire way to make a weakness worse. it’s not so much the idea that wanting that adequately replaced by something with a little more certainty than a rookie or Olofsson is debated, it’s like you are scoffing at it

Why is Quinn the 12th forward? And again, 20th place. I know you want to keep expectations as small as it’s possible to keep them but it’s actually ok to make our team...more likely to make the playoffs for the first time in 13 years!

I’m sure they can capably fill in on at least a 20th place roster. I have no idea why we are seeking to replicate that but yes there’s a good chance a rookie can play a similar role to the one Quinn did during the course of a season during which he was rookie 2nd line winger on a 20th place team We finished 20th place. Sorry just wanted to be sure that got in there

Yes I don’t dislike VO I’m just very bullish on Quinn That’s what’s informing my commentary

He can’t just think we’re “close”, because if we are “close” it has to basically be 1 point because we just did that and he wouldn’t be envisioning he set up a roster primed to step back. So, he must not think we are only a bubble team or how could he NOT prioritize the replacement/points? I would disagree with the stance thoroughly in that case. It leads me to believe he thinks we have a bit of a cushion, which while I’m not sure I agree with, I can much easier reconcile his belief and optimism than some sort of nonchalant attitude towards getting over the hump

Pretty in line with what Liger was expressing then: it’s a loss, probably not one we need to worry about replacing, as the few points it might represent aren’t worth prioritizing If it’s indeed Adams’ thinking (and it appears it is), he must be very confident we’re a playoff team

I agree with all this. To me it’s definitely interesting as a discussion point under the context of there being a fair amount of talk this summer about whether we went too “status quo” with the forwards. I was kind of of the mind that made sense, internal improvement would be enough to offset any regression we MIGHT see. Quinn going down sort of takes a non negligible bite out of that “expected internal improvement” quotient, and, as you say, replaces him with a status quo output relative to last season, instead. So you are absolutely right. Adams might be sitting there saying we still have more than enough improvement coming from other roster spots it doesn’t ultimately matter! Ie, he had us so above the playoff line that whatever the loss of WAR amounts to in losing Quinn isn’t enough to endanger our position above that line

Yes, to not add a player as good as Quinn from the outside because it would prevent us starting out a rookie on a path, this year, where we hope he becomes what Quinn was going to be this year, NEXT. it’s an accepted downgrade for THIS season, though, in the name of not blocking a young player’s development. because it can’t be argued it’s in the best interest of the TEAM, this coming season, to ice a rookie instead of Quinn and what we were expecting of him this season (or a like replacement) We are literally just regurgitating the plan here

Under the idea where we aren’t really losing anything by moving guys up one spot, in order for that to make sense, the players moving up need to necessarily be very close in ability. Which we can grant, I suppose, for sake of argument. But then, by the time you get to the end, you are replacing the guy who was able to supposedly seamlessly replace the guy who we just said seamlessly replaced Quinn. So they are all theoretically Quinn level players. In which case, you are still ultimately replacing what Krebs was going to give you on a “lower” line, with someone likely significantly inferior unless your “next man up” is of the same ilk Ie the only thing that literally matters is the net: it’s Quinn out, rookie/Olofsson in

No, we are somehow replacing Quinn with Mittelstadt? I need a life preserver here

? You have to look at the net of the team, man. You can shuffle the lines but you aren’t making the absence disappear, it’s not a street trick. It’s Quinn out, rookie/Olofsson in Mittelstadt was already playing more than Quinn

As for the veteran designation @ElevenI was using the actual, official nhl definition The designations don’t matter to me

Right, that’s what I’m getting at. In your view, Quinn to Rousek/Olofsson isn’t a downgrade? Or it’s just not a sizeable enough one to really matter? *as Quinn contributed last year* if we are lucky no?

Regardless, the result of Quinn to WHICHEVER of those guys is still a likely downgrade, no?

I don’t really understand what the slant is here - the net is Quinn, out, Rousek/Olofsson, in I know it doesn’t need to be a rookie but I was actively discussing with someone talking about it being a rookie to replace him. Which Rousek Is suppose is

That’s what a team that believes in its depth and is naturally very conservative, would do. I think is more accurate He was on the team last year! Lol

This seems extreme. There’s definitely a middle ground where you believe in your depth but still think it’s ok to replace a guy externally when the in house option is very unlikely to provide the same value.

Wish it wasn’t seen that way but definitely true

I love a semantic discussion as much as anyone but truthfully his designation is besides the point obv. I think it’s probably fair to say it’s unlikely a rookie can contribute to record what Quinn likely would have.

So rare in season though, no? So much has to coincide. Jets can’t be on a winning streak, etc I bet it’s a deadline deal if anything if it lingers into season. But that’s certainly not the only option

And you would not be open to paying more than one so as to make up the difference?

I’m fine with you thinking this but if Adams thinks it, while I want no part of meeting his barber I’d certainly appreciate an introduction to his dealer

It ain’t 22-23 anymore buddy Times have changed

40 point pace last year for Quinn? What do we feel Adams was reasonably penciling in for this year? 50 points, and a reasonably likely extension to his growing 2-way game? Can Savoie step in and provide 50 points this year and a good two way game?