The Stanley Cup Playoffs 2023: First Round GDT

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, Randall Flagg said:

Never seent it

TLDR you get to be Gandalf 

tldrr you get to be the good wizard guy

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

You are completely proving my point. A ham handed, one sided skew that takes so little context into the equation as to render your opinion truly meaningless. Rampant bias. I suppose I thought “radio silence” because I’ve been staying out of the jack discussions on here during the year, I only assumed since he was having such a good season, best player on the best team in the west (this is where so much bias comes in - you’ll do anything other than admit he’s been the best player on a very good team - that he WAS capable of being that all along. That we didn’t construct that scenario here is a Sabres problem, not a Jack problem), that we WOULD be getting radio silence as you folks have been objectively proven so definitively wrong. I suppose I underestimated your ability to fib to yourself 

The fact we had so many guys with POINTZ and they did not, yet they are in first, and we are not, shows how lacking your analysis is of what you need to construct both a winning team and successfully bind players to that formula 

You are totally blind if you haven’t noticed the fact that Vegas missing the playoffs last season was met with “coach killer, cancer”. Yet the knights solidly making it this year was met with “meh, just along for the ride.” It makes me disappointed for your posting quality  

The post you make is laughable.  You think I am proving your point?  Everything I said in my post is true. He is not what he was billed to be by many when he was here with the Sabres and he is not that in Vegas either.  

Along for the ride? he is closer to that than he is to being the reason for the team making the  playoffs.  Once again, The season and a half before he was there they were a LOT better overall than the season and a half since he has been there. Since he got there, OVERALL (not cherry picking) the team has less success. And since he left here,OVERALL in the same time period the Sabres have had more success.

Again, let me repeat that, since Jack got there, they have been not as good. Since he left here, the Sabres have been better.  Cherry pick all you want to make your argument, that is how I ultimately judge a trade. The fact that what the Sabres got for him is outscoring/outpacing him just adds to the above point. 

And, just because you stayed out of the discussion, why did you feel the need to put in your post the words "radio silence".  Just becaue your eyes are closed, its not like everyone else is.  The fact that you decided to say that to make your post sound a bit more 'cute' just goes that you are the one who has the 'ham handed, one sided skewed argument'.

Edited April 19, 2023 by mjd1001

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

“Already one of the more gifted offensive players in the league, Eichel was never seen as a defensive option. Being the top-line center on a Cassidy-coached team comes with that responsibility at both ends of the ice.

Eichel had the best defensive season of his career this year, recording a plus-26 rating at 5-on-5 and a career-high 46 takeaways.

“I’m not surprised. He’s been arguably our best defensive forward in terms of closing in our end, being on time, killing plays,” Cassidy said. “I just think he’s bought in with what we’re trying to get him to do.”“

great article on how well Jack has rounded out his full hockey game. Apologies because POITZ aren’t mentioned 

https://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2023/apr/18/entering-first-playoff-run-jack-eichel-leads-golde/

Is that the same Cassidy who publicly called Eichel out for not contributing enough and gave him fourth line minutes earlier in the season? 

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

The post you make is laughable.  You think I am proving your point?  Everything I said in my post is true. He is not what he was billed to be by many when he was here with the Sabres and he is not that in Vegas either.  

Along for the ride? he is closer to that than he is to being the reason for the team making the  playoffs.  Once again, The season and a half before he was there they were a LOT better overall than the season and a half since he has been there. Since he got there, OVERALL (not cherry picking) the team has less success. And since he left here,OVERALL in the same time period the Sabres have had more success.

Again, let me repeat that, since Jack got there, they have been not as good. Since he left here, the Sabres have been better.  Cherry pick all you want to make your argument, that is how I ultimately judge a trade. The fact that what the Sabres got for him is outscoring/outpacing him just adds to the above point.  Your argument is thin and weak.

The Knights were significantly better than the Sabres this year, dude. Vegas falling off the map last year in the second half because half their team was injured isn’t revelatory. If you come back with something noteworthy, we can try again 

[mjd1001]

Just now, Thorny said:

The Knights were significantly better than the Sabres this year, dude. Vegas falling off the map last year in the second half because half their team was injured isn’t revelatory. If you come back with something noteworthy, we can try again 

It does matter that they were significantly better than the Sabres this year if their team STARTED from a better place than the Sabres were at before the trade. Wow, your argument is bad.

Since the trade, the Sabres have gotten BETTER without Eichel and with Tuch, and the Golden nights have performed WORSE with Eichel in their lineup in the time he has been there comared to the time befor he was there.  They were a better team before Eichel was there, his presense has not added Anything to their sucess, while the Sabres have gotten better.   

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

It does matter that they were significantly better than the Sabres this year if their team STARTED from a better place than the Sabres were at before the trade. Wow, your argument is bad.

Since the trade, the Sabres have gotten BETTER without Eichel and with Tuch, and the Golden nights have performed WORSE with Eichel in their lineup in the time he has been there comared to the time befor he was there.  They were a better team before Eichel was there, his presense has not added Anything to their sucess, while the Sabres have gotten better.   

You do realize your facts are all wrong? 

Sabres recorded 59 points after the Eichel trade last year, Vegas recorded 67. Vegas also had 20 more this season. Like, in reference to your comment that sabres have been better than Vegas since, in other post

Edited April 19, 2023 by Thorny

[Eleven]

WTF Is going on in here?

[mjd1001]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You do realize your facts are all wrong? 
 

Sabres recorded 59 points after the Eichel trade last year, Vegas recorded 67. Vegas also had 20 more this season 

I can’t even do this sh*te

Wow, there is something wrong with how you are reading or thinking.   You judge a trade based on the players impact on the team, is that team better or worse since the trade was made. Vegas was a better team before the trade overall, so Eichel's impact wasn't going to change that.  I have no idea if you just dont' get that or are trying to use an argument that doesn't make sense because it is the only way to make your point.

Let me try to make this REAL SIMPLE:

-In the season before the trade, and the partial season before Eichel got there, Vegas was 68w-36l.   SINCE they got Eichel, They have been 66w-50l. The team has been WORSE overall since they got Eichel.

-Buffalo, on the other hand, has been BETTER since Eichel left and they got Tuch.

If you want to argue something non-sensical then go ahead.  My point all along was that Buffalo so far has one the trade because what they got for Eichel has had a GREAT positive impact on the team than trading him away, and Vegas (so far) is LESS successful with Eichel than they were Before the trade.  That is all I have been saying all along and those are the facts.

 

And please, please tell me what facts I have that are 'all wrong'. If I made a mistake in calculations, It is likely a very small one.  But I really want to know what facts I present that are "All wrong"?

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by mjd1001

[Thorner]

@SDS you are following along, yes? It’s just joking around, or whatever? Statements like “Eichel has not added *anything* to their success” fit along with that? Because that is what is being argued. He hasn’t added anything.

2 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Wow, there is something wrong with how you are reading or thinking.   You judge a trade based on the players impact on the team, is that team better or worse since the trade was made. Vegas was a better team before the trade overall, so Eichel's impact wasn't going to change that.  I have no idea if you just dont' get that or are trying to use an argument that doesn't make sense because it is the only way to make your point.

Let me try to make this REAL SIMPLE:

-In the season before the trade, and the partial season before Eichel got there, Vegas was 68w-36l.   SINCE they got Eichel, They have been 66w-50l. The team has been WORSE overall since they got Eichel.

-Buffalo, on the other hand, has been BETTER since Eichel left and they got Tuch.

If you want to argue something non-sensical then go ahead.  My point all along was that Buffalo so far has one the trade because what they got for Eichel has had a GREAT positive impact on the team than trading him away, and Vegas (so far) is LESS successful with Eichel than they were Before the trade.  That is all I have been saying all along and those are the facts.

 

By all means go off 

Edited April 19, 2023 by Thorny

[mjd1001]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

@SDS you are following along, yes? It’s just joking around, or whatever? Statements like “Eichel has not added *anything* to their success” fit along with that? Because that is what is being argued. He hadn’t added anything.

By all means go off 

Its basically what you did.  You don't say things like "Radio Silence" or use words to describe what others are talking about as 'ham handed' (or whatever it was exactly that you said) without expecint to get a response.    Then you tell the person you are talking to about it that their facts are 'all wrong' just because they aren't good for your argument?  

I guess you need to get the last word in even when you are wrong....because I am just responding the the juvenile way that you talk to/respond to other people's posts.

[Thorner]

21 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Is that the same Cassidy who publicly called Eichel out for not contributing enough and gave him fourth line minutes earlier in the season? 

Yes? It’s detailed in the article you didn’t read 

[Thorner]

53 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Its basically what you did.  You don't say things like "Radio Silence" or use words to describe what others are talking about as 'ham handed' (or whatever it was exactly that you said) without expecint to get a response.    Then you tell the person you are talking to about it that their facts are 'all wrong' just because they aren't good for your argument?  

I guess you need to get the last word in even when you are wrong....because I am just responding the the juvenile way that you talk to/respond to other people's posts.

I’m sorry you find the term “radio silence” offensive. For my part, calling a specific argument “ham handed” is a little different than saying there’s “something wrong” with how someone thinks, but in all honesty, I don’t mind, i wasn’t/am not offended. I get that a lot so I’m used to it. As for the numbers thing, give me one sec 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Thorny

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

A ham handed, one sided skew that takes so little context into the equation as to render your opinion truly meaningless. Rampant bias.

radio silence

POINTZ (nice slang!) 

You are totally blind 

And as far as telling me to "go off" if I need to....I think the above by you illustrates you should really take a good, long look in the mirror at yourself before you cast that remark on anyone else.

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I’m sorry you find the term “radio silence” offensive. For my part, calling a specific argument “ham handed” is a little different than saying there’s “something wrong” with how someone thinks, but in all honesty, I don’t mind, I get that a lot so I’m used to it. As for the numbers thing, give me one sec 

Don't take offense to what I say then and tell me to "by all means, go off" when you are doing the same yourself.

[Eleven]

30 minutes.

[Eleven]

OK try again

[LGR4GM]

 

[HumanSlinky39]

9 hours ago, JujuFish said:

Do you all find it easier or harder to watch the playoffs when the Sabres are so close to being an actual playoff team?  Hot damn, I can't wait for next year.

Best playoff in sports. I have no problem watching regardless of if we missed by 1 game or 30.

Watching Marchand and Gudas go at each other is fun. I know he's a prick, but I'd love to have Gudas here as a 3rd pairing guy.

[...]

Lyon is pretty good.

[GoPuckYourself]

13 minutes ago, ... said:

Lyon is pretty good.

Florida sure knows how to scout goalies... Spencer Knight, Lyon, Devin Levi.

 

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Yes? It’s detailed in the article you didn’t read 

If the linked is the article you’re referencing then I assure you, I’ve read it. Cassidy didn’t pull any punches as usual for him, especially in the embedded presser. It was nice of the Las Vegas Chronicle to make excuses for Jack though. 
 

https://lvchronicle.com/golden-knights/golden-knights-bruce-cassidy-calls-out-jack-eichel/

[bunomatic]

Hey there’s a game on. Not sure how anyone believes that even if its only 4 games against this bruins team that it wouldn’t be good experience for the guys in our room. Anyways,this series has me pining for next season. Playoffs or bust !

[...]

Boo. That was a 21-22 Mitts turnover there.

[...]

Good game, though. Boston is relentless.

[HumanSlinky39]

Goddamn, how do you cough up a turnover like that in the playoffs? Brutal.

Florida strikes back, 2-1

[HumanSlinky39]

Dammit. 2-2