Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, triumph_communes said:

 

Trading Risto+McCabe+Smith for a top-6 forward under long term control is an easy win. We have too many defenders and 3rd line forwards.  We need top 6. It’s a perfect move. 

I'm going to keep saying that getting rid of McCabe is a mistake.  We need  more of him, not less.  Why do other teams want him???  Because they know his value and need that on their team.  I'm ok with Nelson, Hundwick, Scandella, even Pilut if it comes to that, but not McCabe.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Tondas said:

I'm going to keep saying that getting rid of McCabe is a mistake.  We need  more of him, not less.  Why do other teams want him???  Because they know his value and need that on their team.  I'm ok with Nelson, Hundwick, Scandella, even Pilut if it comes to that, but not McCabe.

They want his hitting. But he has an IQ wall that he could never get beyond. Plus he’s been soured by all our losing over the years.  Good change of scenery target. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

Trade Risto+McCabe+Smith with CLB for Dubois?

Columbus just lost Panarin, Duchene, and Dzingel. Why would they trade one of their few good forwards for two Dmen of questionable value when they have Jones and Werenski? 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

They want his hitting. But he has an IQ wall that he could never get beyond. Plus he’s been soured by all our losing over the years.  Good change of scenery target. 

Sorry to disagree. But guys like McCabe don't sour over losing.  Quite the opposite.  They get pissed.  Sabres need more like him.  And I think his IQ is perfectly fine for a 5-6 D-man.  Let's talk about Risto's IQ before McCabe gets into the discussion.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Sorry to disagree. But guys like McCabe don't sour over losing.  Quite the opposite.  They get pissed.  Sabres need more like him.  And I think his IQ is perfectly fine for a 5-6 D-man.  Let's talk about Risto's IQ before McCabe gets into the discussion.

I just don't get the love for McCabe. He has 'intangibles'? Dude misses 20+ games a year and even when he does play he's replaceable at best 

Posted
36 minutes ago, Tondas said:

I'm going to keep saying that getting rid of McCabe is a mistake.  We need  more of him, not less.  Why do other teams want him???  Because they know his value and need that on their team.  I'm ok with Nelson, Hundwick, Scandella, even Pilut if it comes to that, but not McCabe.

Other teams want McCabe???

Posted
3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

I just don't get the love for McCabe. He has 'intangibles'? Dude misses 20+ games a year and even when he does play he's replaceable at best 

He has more and better open-ice hits than the rest of the blue line. People who think those things genuinely contribute to winning are going to like him. I really don't think it's more complicated than that.

Posted

Geez Blue, thanks for the "people" condescension.  My condescending reply is this. "If you've ever played competitive hockey at a high level, I'd be genuinely surprised."

Posted
2 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Geez Blue, thanks for the "people" condescension.  My condescending reply is this. "If you've ever played competitive hockey at a high level, I'd be genuinely surprised."

Ah yes, the "you didn't play, therefore you don't know" rebuttal. Some of the best coaches and GMs never played beyond college/junior, while some of the best players of all time have been lousy coaches and managers. I have no doubt that those who played have a better understanding of what players go through on the day to day, but that's quite a bit different than playing experience translating to actually knowing what produces wins. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Ah yes, the "you didn't play, therefore you don't know" rebuttal. Some of the best coaches and GMs never played beyond college/junior, while some of the best players of all time have been lousy coaches and managers. I have no doubt that those who played have a better understanding of what players go through on the day to day, but that's quite a bit different than playing experience translating to actually knowing what produces wins. 

 

So you’ve played college or major junior?

Posted
6 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Ah yes, the "you didn't play, therefore you don't know" rebuttal. Some of the best coaches and GMs never played beyond college/junior, while some of the best players of all time have been lousy coaches and managers. I have no doubt that those who played have a better understanding of what players go through on the day to day, but that's quite a bit different than playing experience translating to actually knowing what produces wins. 

What level did you play?  Did you ever have to go into a battle where you disliked your teammate but took a beat down for him. 

Posted
1 minute ago, triumph_communes said:

 

So you’ve played college or major junior?

Nope. And I'd venture that 99% of posters here haven't either. 

More to the point, people are mostly going to believe what they were socialized to believe. People are going to draw causal connections from their experiences. And so in. Just the way humans work. Doesn't make them right. The effects of socialization and personal experiences are why it's important to have a robust debate. But hey, feel free to reject perspectives from those with different experiences if that's your jam. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

 

So you’ve played college or major junior?

College.  Maybe things have changed since I played in the 80's.  However, teamwork I don't think has changed much.

Posted
19 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

He has more and better open-ice hits than the rest of the blue line. People who think those things genuinely contribute to winning are going to like him. I really don't think it's more complicated than that.

Blue didn’t even say that those “people” are wrong, let alone stupid or anything like that.

12 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Geez Blue, thanks for the "people" condescension.  My condescending reply is this. "If you've ever played competitive hockey at a high level, I'd be genuinely surprised."

This is such a lazy and tired argument.  No one here has played in the NHL, so I guess none of us have a clue then.

 

4 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

So you’ve played college or major junior?

 

1 minute ago, Tondas said:

What level did you play?  Did you ever have to go into a battle where you disliked your teammate but took a beat down for him. 

I guess if you guys want to go make a forum or club only for poster who played at a certain level of hockey, excluding everyone else, I guess now would be a good time to go do that.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Tondas said:

What level did you play?  Did you ever have to go into a battle where you disliked your teammate but took a beat down for him. 

I played football and lacrosse in high school, never ice hockey (family couldn't afford it growing up) and nothing in college outside of some random rec league roller and floor hockey. So what? 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Nope. And I'd venture that 99% of posters here haven't either.

Blue,  I like many of your posts but please don't generalize.  I have played at a high level and am offended.  We can have differing opinions, that's perfectly OK.  But please don't dispute my credentials offhand.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Tondas said:

College.  Maybe things have changed since I played in the 80's.  However, teamwork I don't think has changed much.

Where did I say anything about teamwork? There are people who prefer an overtly physical brand of hockey. Some of that is because they think it contributes to winning, some of it is simply entertainment. People who fall into either or both of those categories are going to like McCabe more than people who value other hockey traits more. 

Posted
Just now, TrueBlueGED said:

Where did I say anything about teamwork? There are people who prefer an overtly physical brand of hockey. Some of that is because they think it contributes to winning, some of it is simply entertainment. People who fall into either or both of those categories are going to like McCabe more than people who value other hockey traits more. 

Your use of "people" is offensive and overgeneralizing.  I'm not people, I'm one guy.  There are influential current individuals today that use the term "people" so much it will make your head spin.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Tondas said:

Your use of "people" is offensive and overgeneralizing.  I'm not people, I'm one guy.  There are influential current individuals today that use the term "people" so much it will make your head spin.

But "people" is the proper usage here, unlike the rectum it gets pulled from in other contexts. You keep talking about yourself personally, but I'm making a broader point. 

Edit: How many debates have there been (and will there continue to be) on this specific forum about the value of hitting? I'm quite comfortable using "people" here. 

Edited by TrueBlueGED
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...