Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

He's nothing like Larsson from what I've seen. He's big, and can hold his own in front of the net. Jankowski centering Larsson and Girgs? Yea, that's an upgrade I can get behind. Sure beats doing nothing.

Let's see if I can beat @inkman to the punch......

Maybe he should try holding his hockey stick instead.

Edited by MakeSabresGrr8Again
  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
57 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

Their fans are looking for mid to bottom pairing kind of guy. Maybe a potential trade has more than player for player.

So we are using trade capital on a player that hasn't scored in 21 games again why? 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So we are using trade capital on a player that hasn't scored in 21 games again why? 

Atleast that wouldn't mess with team chemistry......

  • Haha (+1) 4
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The only thing that will actually improve this team is a meaningful addition of talent to the top 6. Everything else is lipstick on a pig. 

That's an insult to the pig at this point

Edited by WildCard
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

So we are using trade capital on a player that hasn't scored in 21 games again why? 

So addressing bottom 6 needs should be ignored?

I fail to see the counter point here. Since we don't have any idea as to cost. It could be as simple as Girgs and a pick for Jankowski and a pick, or some other arrangement. Trades aren't solely based on known quantities, some are on roles, fit, position need and so on.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

So addressing bottom 6 needs should be ignored?

I fail to see the counter point here. Since we don't have any idea as to cost. It could be as simple as Girgs and a pick for Jankowski and a pick, or some other arrangement. Trades aren't solely based on known quantities, some are on roles, fit, position need and so on.

My counter point is pretty simple. What does this do to help this team? Does it increase our scoring? Yes addressing the bottom 6 should be ignored because until the top 6 is fixed it doesn't matter. Great we add Jankowski and swap out Zemgus. What's that get us? Honest question are we talking what? a win or 2 maybe? It's a pointless move that doesn't address the real issue which is scoring and possession. 

Posted
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

My counter point is pretty simple. What does this do to help this team? Does it increase our scoring? Yes addressing the bottom 6 should be ignored because until the top 6 is fixed it doesn't matter. Great we add Jankowski and swap out Zemgus. What's that get us? Honest question are we talking what? a win or 2 maybe? It's a pointless move that doesn't address the real issue which is scoring and possession. 

Then there are the guys currently in top 6 roles who are much better suited for bottom 6.  They get bumped back down so addressing the top 6 also addresses the bottom 6.

  • Like (+1) 4
Posted
5 minutes ago, shrader said:

Then there are the guys currently in top 6 roles who are much better suited for bottom 6.  They get bumped back down so addressing the top 6 also addresses the bottom 6.

Correct. We took a step by being able to force prospects down to the AHL (not all but at least most). The next step is to kick bottom 6 players out and replace them with middle 6 and even potentially top 6 guys. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

My counter point is pretty simple. What does this do to help this team? Does it increase our scoring? Yes addressing the bottom 6 should be ignored because until the top 6 is fixed it doesn't matter. Great we add Jankowski and swap out Zemgus. What's that get us? Honest question are we talking what? a win or 2 maybe? It's a pointless move that doesn't address the real issue which is scoring and possession. 

Well that's just foolish imo. Every GM should be looking to address areas of need.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

Well that's just foolish imo. Every GM should be looking to address areas of need.

How is that an area of need? What's he going to do? Help the 4th line not score more? 

6 minutes ago, sweetlou said:

Helps bottom 6. 

SHeary and ERod need to go.  We need bigger, stronger players who won't be pushed around.

Yea yea I have heard this argument consistently. We need players who go to the dirty areas and score. Jankowski might go to the dirty areas but he's not going to chip in much. Shrader pointed out the reason you address the top 6 first. 

Would you trade Milan Lucic for Reinhart straight up?

Edited by LGR4GM
Posted
13 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How is that an area of need? What's he going to do? Help the 4th line not score more? 

Yea yea I have heard this argument consistently. We need players who go to the dirty areas and score. Jankowski might go to the dirty areas but he's not going to chip in much. Shrader pointed out the reason you address the top 6 first. 

Would you trade Milan Lucic for Reinhart straight up?

If you haven't recognized PK, center fo% and net front presence size as area needs, well (shrugs shoulders).

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Scottysabres said:

If you haven't recognized PK, center fo% and net front presence size as area needs, well (shrugs shoulders).

 

What he's saying is that adding a player who can do those things but does stuff like go 21 games with zero points probably doesn't move the needle on the season

Posted
34 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

What he's saying is that adding a player who can do those things but does stuff like go 21 games with zero points probably doesn't move the needle on the season

I understand. Was merely pointing out offensive production isn't the only area 0f need.

Posted
On 11/14/2019 at 12:32 PM, thewookie1 said:

I’m not trading Mitts in any trade involving the names mentioned.

The only guys worth a recent 1st rounder who has a lot of skill but has had some bumps would be Dumba, and maybe a half retained Suter since he’d eat minutes.

Do teams actively covet Mitts?  Cuz i watch him and think... he kinda... sucks.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
20 minutes ago, Drag0nDan said:

Do teams actively covet Mitts?  Cuz i watch him and think... he kinda... sucks.

He is too much of a video game millenial imo... unmotivated with a lot of talent.  He needs that fire in his belly and I just dont see it.  Maybe a running mate would inspire him like Cozens or someone needs to really piss him off.

Posted

Lots of bad takes on poor Casey here. Kid is talented but not NHL ready and that's all there is to it. He should be in the A right now but he's not. It's got nothing to do with motivation or skill.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Posted
4 hours ago, darksabre said:

A modest upgrade on Johan Larsson is not inspiring.

I'm really not sure it would be. 

If Botterill's answer is to acquire a guy with ZERO points, you'd honestly have to give him an "A" for entertainment value. The dialogue that would ensue...?

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...