ALL Spezza talk - to trade, not to trade, rant, rave etc.

wprager wrote:You know what, the hell with this, Ban me for a week. I need the extra time.

I cant get suspended for using emotions can I? Hope not but actions do speak louder the words... Hey, I can say that about Spezza too! I knew this would come full circle.

Saying "stir the pot"... is that a metaphor for something fancy involving Spezza? Im sure a few of those were sent out. In all honesty it's border line creepy the way people talk about the guy.

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:OK, this time I'm really done. You've really gone over the edge. I don't remember you being such a cabbage head from before but, perhaps, there's some truth in what another poster said about you. I used to respect your opinion and your posts, but lately I've noticed changes. You started by getting into it with a new poster (or two), and now you're doing the same with me. Personally, I don't think I come across as an arse, so I usually don't take kindly when someone responds to me in such a way. I really don't know what's going on with you but you must be under some stress to cause such a shift. Or, perhaps, my initial read on you was incorrect. Who knows?

I don't have any evidence to support any mental injury or anguish you may have suffered, that has affected your performance on this site. I know you're capable of doing better than this, and we've all seen it in the past. Maybe Devo knows someone who knows you and can lend some hearsay evidence to support the notion of some kind of stress-induced personality disorder?

I'm not going to put you on ignore as I'm hoping this is just a temporary "thing" you're going through. I'll sit back, now, and read your reply. I know I'm not going to like it but, frankly, this will be a tiny disappointment when compared to what we all have to go through in real life. I'll read; I'll probably shake my head and roll my eyes; very likely I'll think of a few clever retorts. But I'm going to suppress the (undeniable) urge to get the next word because, frankly, this has gone beyond ridiculous and not into the sublime.

Have a good day, everyone.

Yes, now I see how "mad" it is to ask for proof of the thing you're assuming as the basis of your argument, and which you're using to steamroll my position and hording over me as established fact. Absolutely insane. Clearly, over the course of earning 2 graduate degrees and adding "Dr." to the front of my name and teaching courses on writing and arguing, I learned absolutely nothing about reasoning, logic, and effective argumentation. It's all so obvious now. It's amazing how some 2 dozen instructors, all with doctorates to their name, and all dedicating their time to my work (with increasing scrutiny and attention with regard to my later material), as well as all my classmates, colleagues, and conference attendees, all failed to see how painfully deficient at holding my own in an argument. That explains so much. That you for opening my eyes and showing the way.

Calling me a "cabbage head" and attacking my character adds a lot of credibility to your position, and your character, btw. Find one sentence in this conversation where I ever attack you personally, I challenge you. It is your argument, and not your person, that I dispute. If you really can't see how the sources you're citing in defence of your position actually don't say the things you're saying they say, then I'm done. I unfortunately can't get all my students to see how Bartleby is far more than a madman or why Shelley talks to the wind, either -- some people just don't get it now matter what I do, and it would appear that this is sadly one of those instances.

You have no idea how much I'm holding back in terms of responding to you on a personal level, wprager. You would be wise not to respond to me in these terms again, or I won't be responsible for what I say.

He did not attack you only the way you seem to be acting. BIG difference. Aren't you an ENGLISH professor? That distinction should be very easy for you to spot. He said he didn't remember you BEING such a cabbage head. So even if he was serious and not making a joke he was attacking the way in which he felt you were BEING/acting.

N4L wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:I might as well warn you in front of the 3 people who still have arguments for this thread.

You cannot call someone an idiot Neely. Don't do it again or it's a week off.

Is cabage head or clown acceptable?

No you'e right, calling you a clown in unacceptable, for that I apoogize.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:OK, this time I'm really done. You've really gone over the edge. I don't remember you being such a cabbage head from before but, perhaps, there's some truth in what another poster said about you. I used to respect your opinion and your posts, but lately I've noticed changes. You started by getting into it with a new poster (or two), and now you're doing the same with me. Personally, I don't think I come across as an arse, so I usually don't take kindly when someone responds to me in such a way. I really don't know what's going on with you but you must be under some stress to cause such a shift. Or, perhaps, my initial read on you was incorrect. Who knows?

I don't have any evidence to support any mental injury or anguish you may have suffered, that has affected your performance on this site. I know you're capable of doing better than this, and we've all seen it in the past. Maybe Devo knows someone who knows you and can lend some hearsay evidence to support the notion of some kind of stress-induced personality disorder?

I'm not going to put you on ignore as I'm hoping this is just a temporary "thing" you're going through. I'll sit back, now, and read your reply. I know I'm not going to like it but, frankly, this will be a tiny disappointment when compared to what we all have to go through in real life. I'll read; I'll probably shake my head and roll my eyes; very likely I'll think of a few clever retorts. But I'm going to suppress the (undeniable) urge to get the next word because, frankly, this has gone beyond ridiculous and not into the sublime.

Have a good day, everyone.

Yes, now I see how "mad" it is to ask for proof of the thing you're assuming as the basis of your argument, and which you're using to steamroll my position and hording over me as established fact. Absolutely insane. Clearly, over the course of earning 2 graduate degrees and adding "Dr." to the front of my name and teaching courses on writing and arguing, I learned absolutely nothing about reasoning, logic, and effective argumentation. It's all so obvious now. It's amazing how some 2 dozen instructors, all with doctorates to their name, and all dedicating their time to my work (with increasing scrutiny and attention with regard to my later material), as well as all my classmates, colleagues, and conference attendees, all failed to see how painfully deficient at holding my own in an argument. That explains so much. That you for opening my eyes and showing the way.

Calling me a "cabbage head" and attacking my character adds a lot of credibility to your position, and your character, btw. Find one sentence in this conversation where I ever attack you personally, I challenge you. It is your argument, and not your person, that I dispute. If you really can't see how the sources you're citing in defence of your position actually don't say the things you're saying they say, then I'm done. I unfortunately can't get all my students to see how Bartleby is far more than a madman or why Shelley talks to the wind, either -- some people just don't get it now matter what I do, and it would appear that this is sadly one of those instances.

You have no idea how much I'm holding back in terms of responding to you on a personal level, wprager. You would be wise not to respond to me in these terms again, or I won't be responsible for what I say.

He did not attack you only the way you seem to be acting. BIG difference. Aren't you an ENGLISH professor? That distinction should be very easy for you to spot. He said he didn't remember you BEING such a cabbage head. So even if he was serious and not making a joke he was attacking the way in which he felt you were BEING/acting.

How does being an english prof have anything to do with Spezza? Rooney education and accolades play no part in this discussion, unless of course he is trying to toot his own horn.

Rooney, where did you achieve your PhD?

TeamRenzo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:OK, this time I'm really done. You've really gone over the edge. I don't remember you being such a cabbage head from before but, perhaps, there's some truth in what another poster said about you. I used to respect your opinion and your posts, but lately I've noticed changes. You started by getting into it with a new poster (or two), and now you're doing the same with me. Personally, I don't think I come across as an arse, so I usually don't take kindly when someone responds to me in such a way. I really don't know what's going on with you but you must be under some stress to cause such a shift. Or, perhaps, my initial read on you was incorrect. Who knows?

I don't have any evidence to support any mental injury or anguish you may have suffered, that has affected your performance on this site. I know you're capable of doing better than this, and we've all seen it in the past. Maybe Devo knows someone who knows you and can lend some hearsay evidence to support the notion of some kind of stress-induced personality disorder?

I'm not going to put you on ignore as I'm hoping this is just a temporary "thing" you're going through. I'll sit back, now, and read your reply. I know I'm not going to like it but, frankly, this will be a tiny disappointment when compared to what we all have to go through in real life. I'll read; I'll probably shake my head and roll my eyes; very likely I'll think of a few clever retorts. But I'm going to suppress the (undeniable) urge to get the next word because, frankly, this has gone beyond ridiculous and not into the sublime.

Have a good day, everyone.

Yes, now I see how "mad" it is to ask for proof of the thing you're assuming as the basis of your argument, and which you're using to steamroll my position and hording over me as established fact. Absolutely insane. Clearly, over the course of earning 2 graduate degrees and adding "Dr." to the front of my name and teaching courses on writing and arguing, I learned absolutely nothing about reasoning, logic, and effective argumentation. It's all so obvious now. It's amazing how some 2 dozen instructors, all with doctorates to their name, and all dedicating their time to my work (with increasing scrutiny and attention with regard to my later material), as well as all my classmates, colleagues, and conference attendees, all failed to see how painfully deficient at holding my own in an argument. That explains so much. That you for opening my eyes and showing the way.

Calling me a "cabbage head" and attacking my character adds a lot of credibility to your position, and your character, btw. Find one sentence in this conversation where I ever attack you personally, I challenge you. It is your argument, and not your person, that I dispute. If you really can't see how the sources you're citing in defence of your position actually don't say the things you're saying they say, then I'm done. I unfortunately can't get all my students to see how Bartleby is far more than a madman or why Shelley talks to the wind, either -- some people just don't get it now matter what I do, and it would appear that this is sadly one of those instances.

You have no idea how much I'm holding back in terms of responding to you on a personal level, wprager. You would be wise not to respond to me in these terms again, or I won't be responsible for what I say.

He did not attack you only the way you seem to be acting. BIG difference. Aren't you an ENGLISH professor? That distinction should be very easy for you to spot. He said he didn't remember you BEING such a cabbage head. So even if he was serious and not making a joke he was attacking the way in which he felt you were BEING/acting.

How does being an english prof have anything to do with Spezza? Rooney education and accolades play no part in this discussion, unless of course he is trying to toot his own horn.

Rooney, where did you achieve your PhD?

Nothing to do with Spezza but it does go to the heart of his argument that prager was attacking rooney's character on a personal level. First of all he was joking and second of all it was attacking what he felt his behavior was not rooney as a person. This is a fine distinction but, with a PhD in English rooney should be able to spot the difference. Did he simply ignore it so he could accuse prages of attacking him?

this is like a hate thread

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:OK, this time I'm really done. You've really gone over the edge. I don't remember you being such a cabbage head from before but, perhaps, there's some truth in what another poster said about you. I used to respect your opinion and your posts, but lately I've noticed changes. You started by getting into it with a new poster (or two), and now you're doing the same with me. Personally, I don't think I come across as an arse, so I usually don't take kindly when someone responds to me in such a way. I really don't know what's going on with you but you must be under some stress to cause such a shift. Or, perhaps, my initial read on you was incorrect. Who knows?

I don't have any evidence to support any mental injury or anguish you may have suffered, that has affected your performance on this site. I know you're capable of doing better than this, and we've all seen it in the past. Maybe Devo knows someone who knows you and can lend some hearsay evidence to support the notion of some kind of stress-induced personality disorder?

I'm not going to put you on ignore as I'm hoping this is just a temporary "thing" you're going through. I'll sit back, now, and read your reply. I know I'm not going to like it but, frankly, this will be a tiny disappointment when compared to what we all have to go through in real life. I'll read; I'll probably shake my head and roll my eyes; very likely I'll think of a few clever retorts. But I'm going to suppress the (undeniable) urge to get the next word because, frankly, this has gone beyond ridiculous and not into the sublime.

Have a good day, everyone.

Yes, now I see how "mad" it is to ask for proof of the thing you're assuming as the basis of your argument, and which you're using to steamroll my position and hording over me as established fact. Absolutely insane. Clearly, over the course of earning 2 graduate degrees and adding "Dr." to the front of my name and teaching courses on writing and arguing, I learned absolutely nothing about reasoning, logic, and effective argumentation. It's all so obvious now. It's amazing how some 2 dozen instructors, all with doctorates to their name, and all dedicating their time to my work (with increasing scrutiny and attention with regard to my later material), as well as all my classmates, colleagues, and conference attendees, all failed to see how painfully deficient at holding my own in an argument. That explains so much. That you for opening my eyes and showing the way.

Calling me a "cabbage head" and attacking my character adds a lot of credibility to your position, and your character, btw. Find one sentence in this conversation where I ever attack you personally, I challenge you. It is your argument, and not your person, that I dispute. If you really can't see how the sources you're citing in defence of your position actually don't say the things you're saying they say, then I'm done. I unfortunately can't get all my students to see how Bartleby is far more than a madman or why Shelley talks to the wind, either -- some people just don't get it now matter what I do, and it would appear that this is sadly one of those instances.

You have no idea how much I'm holding back in terms of responding to you on a personal level, wprager. You would be wise not to respond to me in these terms again, or I won't be responsible for what I say.

He did not attack you only the way you seem to be acting. BIG difference. Aren't you an ENGLISH professor? That distinction should be very easy for you to spot. He said he didn't remember you BEING such a cabbage head. So even if he was serious and not making a joke he was attacking the way in which he felt you were BEING/acting.

The distinction you are trying to draw is entirely specious. If postmodernism has taught us anything, it is that we are all performing, at every moment of our lives. So separating "being" (which implies acting, performing, doing) from "is" (which implies essence, essential) is a fallacy. We are what we perform.

I admire, however, that you, as the head of the site and one of its admins, would go to such lengths try and excuse someone who's blatantly violated its own rules, and try to turn this on me, and use it to question my academic training. Well done.

TeamRenzo wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:OK, this time I'm really done. You've really gone over the edge. I don't remember you being such a cabbage head from before but, perhaps, there's some truth in what another poster said about you. I used to respect your opinion and your posts, but lately I've noticed changes. You started by getting into it with a new poster (or two), and now you're doing the same with me. Personally, I don't think I come across as an arse, so I usually don't take kindly when someone responds to me in such a way. I really don't know what's going on with you but you must be under some stress to cause such a shift. Or, perhaps, my initial read on you was incorrect. Who knows?

I don't have any evidence to support any mental injury or anguish you may have suffered, that has affected your performance on this site. I know you're capable of doing better than this, and we've all seen it in the past. Maybe Devo knows someone who knows you and can lend some hearsay evidence to support the notion of some kind of stress-induced personality disorder?

I'm not going to put you on ignore as I'm hoping this is just a temporary "thing" you're going through. I'll sit back, now, and read your reply. I know I'm not going to like it but, frankly, this will be a tiny disappointment when compared to what we all have to go through in real life. I'll read; I'll probably shake my head and roll my eyes; very likely I'll think of a few clever retorts. But I'm going to suppress the (undeniable) urge to get the next word because, frankly, this has gone beyond ridiculous and not into the sublime.

Have a good day, everyone.

Yes, now I see how "mad" it is to ask for proof of the thing you're assuming as the basis of your argument, and which you're using to steamroll my position and hording over me as established fact. Absolutely insane. Clearly, over the course of earning 2 graduate degrees and adding "Dr." to the front of my name and teaching courses on writing and arguing, I learned absolutely nothing about reasoning, logic, and effective argumentation. It's all so obvious now. It's amazing how some 2 dozen instructors, all with doctorates to their name, and all dedicating their time to my work (with increasing scrutiny and attention with regard to my later material), as well as all my classmates, colleagues, and conference attendees, all failed to see how painfully deficient at holding my own in an argument. That explains so much. That you for opening my eyes and showing the way.

Calling me a "cabbage head" and attacking my character adds a lot of credibility to your position, and your character, btw. Find one sentence in this conversation where I ever attack you personally, I challenge you. It is your argument, and not your person, that I dispute. If you really can't see how the sources you're citing in defence of your position actually don't say the things you're saying they say, then I'm done. I unfortunately can't get all my students to see how Bartleby is far more than a madman or why Shelley talks to the wind, either -- some people just don't get it now matter what I do, and it would appear that this is sadly one of those instances.

You have no idea how much I'm holding back in terms of responding to you on a personal level, wprager. You would be wise not to respond to me in these terms again, or I won't be responsible for what I say.

He did not attack you only the way you seem to be acting. BIG difference. Aren't you an ENGLISH professor? That distinction should be very easy for you to spot. He said he didn't remember you BEING such a cabbage head. So even if he was serious and not making a joke he was attacking the way in which he felt you were BEING/acting.

How does being an english prof have anything to do with Spezza? Rooney education and accolades play no part in this discussion, unless of course he is trying to toot his own horn.

Rooney, where did you achieve your PhD?

PM'd to this one. I would hope that TeamRenzo can keep that info private.

The only reason I don't want my real name on this site is because I don't want these posts showing up any Google searches. I have anywhere between 100 and 300 students every year. I don't want them, or future employers, looking my name up (and they do) and finding me talking hockey. I'm totally happy to prove who and what I am to anyone who wants to know, provided my real name never appears in any posts on this site.

sens4win wrote:this is like a hate thread

For Spezza? Or its contributors?

At least you didn't post those blackberry commercials

marakh wrote:At least you didn't post those blackberry commercials

God, I can't stand those. "All you need is love, but go buy some phone potentially containing Congolese coltan."

My least favourite commercials this side of "Evony."

Anyway, what was this thread supposed to be about, again?

asq2 wrote:

marakh wrote:At least you didn't post those blackberry commercials

God, I can't stand those. "All you need is love, but go buy some phone potentially containing Congolese coltan."

My least favourite commercials this side of "Evony."

Anyway, what was this thread supposed to be about, again?

The transubstantiation-esque transformation of "it is rumoured Spezza may have been injured, which may begin to explain Spezza's previous poor play" into "Spezza was injured, no doubt, no questions, all fact, and it explains 100% his previous poor play."

asq2 wrote:

marakh wrote:At least you didn't post those blackberry commercials

God, I can't stand those. "All you need is love, but go buy some phone potentially containing Congolese coltan."

My least favourite commercials this side of "Evony."

Anyway, what was this thread supposed to be about, again?

Don't you find it hilarious that those Blackberry commercials play all the time during NHL games/highlights?

rooneypoo wrote:

sens4win wrote:this is like a hate thread

For Spezza? Or its contributors?

maybe a bit of both

SpezDispenser wrote:

sens4win wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

sens4win wrote:this is like a hate thread

For Spezza? Or its contributors?

maybe a bit of both

What you want to do is let this thread float out into the sunset by not replying on it. That's my opinion.

it was close nearing the bottom of the page ill just stop know and go post till its at the bottom..
care to join me ?

rooneypoo wrote:

asq2 wrote:

marakh wrote:At least you didn't post those blackberry commercials

God, I can't stand those. "All you need is love, but go buy some phone potentially containing Congolese coltan."

My least favourite commercials this side of "Evony."

Anyway, what was this thread supposed to be about, again?

The transubstantiation-esque transformation of "it is rumoured Spezza may have been injured, which may begin to explain Spezza's previous poor play" into "Spezza was injured, no doubt, no questions, all fact, and it explains 100% his previous poor play."

I see your point, but I think you're just as quick to dismiss it as others are of accepting it. Anyway, I think it's easier to poke holes than it is to give an explanation, so I'm interested in hearing what you think is the cause of Spezza's inconsistency.

Spezza doesn't seem to be an enigma in the Kovalev style of inconsistency (which even Kovalev hasn't been recently affected by), in that it's not a one game to the next question mark.

By my analysis, he's had this season:
a) a great, universally lauded showing in his first twelve games of the season, followed by
b) a terrible, universally decried showing in his next eighteen (?)games, followed by
c) substantial injury time, followed by
d) a terrific performance in his eight (?) games since he's come back, with the exception of the Leafs game where pretty much everyone stunk.

So, long hot-streak, long cold-streak, long hot-streak.

I can think of three explanations:
1. He was injured during his cold streak, which led him to play more tentatively, which led to lessening confidence. For some non-definitive evidence we could point to what Pragues said, his somewhat substantial injury history, his lack of volition to keep the puck during that cold-streak, and, some would say, even his skating style which is conducive to back pain.
2. The long injury break gave him time to evaluate where he was going wrong and helped him iron out issues in his game. On its own, this would be an even more ideal, but less likely, explanation because it would mean he can pretty easily solve problems and would mean he doesn't have back issues.
3. He sucks, nobody needs to remember his first twelve games of the season, and he came back riding the Karlsson wave when the team was playing well.

I think it's a mixture of the first two, and doubtless the strong play of EK and the rest of the team helped him out, although you can point to games like Buffalo, Boston and last night where either Karlsson wasn't playing, or the team in general wasn't playing well, and he still got it done.

None of these are, of course, conclusive. But I don't think you should throw them away just because of that, without at least providing an alternative explanation.

And hopefully you'll be able to provide indisputable proof in the process.

I wonder how truly confindent people are in their opinions?

Would all the trash talkers have the gonads to speak their opinions in front of people like Bryan Murray, Tim Murray, you know the real experts.

SpezDispenser wrote:

sens4win wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

sens4win wrote:this is like a hate thread

For Spezza? Or its contributors?

maybe a bit of both

What you want to do is let this thread float out into the sunset by not replying on it. That's my opinion.

Yes. 'Cause what we need around here is more quality analysis such as, for instance, the last 7 pages of conversation that was just added to the "Trade Bonanza" thread today. Why are we wasting our time on this thread anyway?

PKC wrote:

asq2 wrote:

marakh wrote:At least you didn't post those blackberry commercials

God, I can't stand those. "All you need is love, but go buy some phone potentially containing Congolese coltan."

My least favourite commercials this side of "Evony."

Anyway, what was this thread supposed to be about, again?

Don't you find it hilarious that those Blackberry commercials play all the time during NHL games/highlights?

Yeah, seems like Jimmy's trying to win our hearts and minds.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

sens4win wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

sens4win wrote:this is like a hate thread

For Spezza? Or its contributors?

maybe a bit of both

What you want to do is let this thread float out into the sunset by not replying on it. That's my opinion.

Yes. 'Cause what we need around here is more quality analysis such as, for instance, the last 7 pages of conversation that was just added to the "Trade Bonanza" thread today. Why are we wasting our time on this thread anyway?

To be fair, it's not like the direction this thread has taken is any better. You have to go back to page 45 for the last bit of anything hockey-related/non-personal.

Well he's right. Most threads get stupid with the fluffing and it kills the site.

Right. But posters insulting/threatening to insult one another, and making comments like "your posts lower my IQ" is what this site needs more of. Plus there was that relevant discussion of academic degrees.

If the fluffing isn't good hockey talk, at least it isn't hostile.

At any rate, friendly hockey talk is what we should get back to and I eagerly await rooney's response to my post.

Yup it should and that's a big reason why people are starting to get turned off the site, all the needless fulffing about nothing.

Anyways, I think The Spezza thing has been beaten to death a 1000 times over. The arguements for and against him are most;y true for the most part and pretty well known to anyone who is objective at all.

There is a bunch of people that want to slit their wrists if he was ever traded, they ruin an actual discussion about him.

asq2 wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

asq2 wrote:

marakh wrote:At least you didn't post those blackberry commercials

God, I can't stand those. "All you need is love, but go buy some phone potentially containing Congolese coltan."

My least favourite commercials this side of "Evony."

Anyway, what was this thread supposed to be about, again?

The transubstantiation-esque transformation of "it is rumoured Spezza may have been injured, which may begin to explain Spezza's previous poor play" into "Spezza was injured, no doubt, no questions, all fact, and it explains 100% his previous poor play."

I see your point, but I think you're just as quick to dismiss it as others are of accepting it. Anyway, I think it's easier to poke holes than it is to give an explanation, so I'm interested in hearing what you think is the cause of Spezza's inconsistency.

Spezza doesn't seem to be an enigma in the Kovalev style of inconsistency (which even Kovalev hasn't been recently affected by), in that it's not a one game to the next question mark.

By my analysis, he's had this season:
a) a great, universally lauded showing in his first twelve games of the season, followed by
b) a terrible, universally decried showing in his next eighteen (?)games, followed by
c) substantial injury time, followed by
d) a terrific performance in his eight (?) games since he's come back, with the exception of the Leafs game where pretty much everyone stunk.

So, long hot-streak, long cold-streak, long hot-streak.

I can think of three explanations:
1. He was injured during his cold streak, which led him to play more tentatively, which led to lessening confidence. For some non-definitive evidence we could point to what Pragues said, his somewhat substantial injury history, his lack of volition to keep the puck during that cold-streak, and, some would say, even his skating style which is conducive to back pain.
2. The long injury break gave him time to evaluate where he was going wrong and helped him iron out issues in his game. On its own, this would be an even more ideal, but less likely, explanation because it would mean he can pretty easily solve problems and would mean he doesn't have back issues.
3. He sucks, nobody needs to remember his first twelve games of the season, and he came back riding the Karlsson wave when the team was playing well.

I think it's a mixture of the first two, and doubtless the strong play of EK and the rest of the team helped him out, although you can point to games like Buffalo, Boston and last night where either Karlsson wasn't playing, or the team in general wasn't playing well, and he still got it done.

None of these are, of course, conclusive. But I don't think you should throw them away just because of that, without at least providing an alternative explanation.

And hopefully you'll be able to provide indisputable proof in the process.

Now this is more like the beginnings of a sensible conversation. Well done.



My opposition on this issue has been entirely a resistance to the silent but sure transformation of rumour into indisputable fact. I don't dispute that Spezza may have been injured. Just as, by the same token, I won't rule out the possibility that he also may not have been injured. A rumour is a rumour, and a fact is a fact, and until the rumour becomes fact, let's not cite it as such and use it as a catch-all excuse to explain what happened to Spezza this year. When you do that, you delve into the evil I have termed excuse makery, which is a disease that drives me to vomiting in my shirt pocket most unexpectedly. Too many people have been making excuses for this guy for too long.

Your breakdown of Spezza's season is entirely fair, although I think I would down "terrific" to "much improved, doing what he has to do to be an effective player." That may be entirely semantic, tho'. I agree, too, that Spezza isn't inconsistent in the same way that Kovalev is (or rather, was) -- that is, he doesn't suffer from that kind of day-to-day inconsistency.

Where we need more nuance is in the list of options you present. I don't have numbered scenarios like you, because I'm not sure that anything like this can be explained that simply (as you yourself seem to admit), but I do have a a number of points to think through.

First, some pre-ambles: Spezza does NOT suck, and we should NOT forget about the first dozen or so games of the season, or his last 8 games or so. But his inconsistency gives us cause for concern, and we can't forget the bad in remembering the good, either.

To that end, I would argue that Spezza IS inconsistent, but not in the same way as Kovalev, and that can find evidence of that inconsistency all through his career. It's a very different kind of beast, tho'. Spezza's production, and consistency, is tied directly to how the team is doing around him. He thrives in situations where the team is winning, where he has great linemates, where he isn't facing intense scrutiny and challenges, and isn't relied on so heavily. His most productive years coincide largely with periods of the team's success (2007-08 excluded, perhaps, although the team did have some early success that year and, unlike the next year for instance, they did win enough games to at least squeak into the playoffs) -- when he had great linemates, a strong team, etc. But when the team is not winning, when he's under pressure and relied on, when he faces adversity, he buckles and folds. That's when we start seeing boneheaded plays, a sloppy ethic, and mistakes understandable in a 20-year rookie but baffling in a 7-year vet of the NHL. Spezza's main issue, and probably the main factor in explaining his up and down seasons over the last 2 calendar years, is (I would argue) that he's not capable of putting the team on his back, of leading the charge when things get tough, of fighting through adversity. What some people call his "struggles," I call his essential identity as a great complementary player. What people excuse as his relative youth, his inexperience, his needing time to make adjustments, his "he isn't there yet" syndrome, I see all these things as functions of that identity as a complementary player -- an identity that he has revealed to us and confirmed for us again and again.

Of course, there is not definitive proof when interpretingthe development of something as complex as a human character, especially when we are denied access to certain data (as we are). My whole point, tho', is that anchoring our reading of Spezza's career trajectory entirely in one suggestion that we won't ever be able to prove definitively is foolhardy, and leads us down the path of nauseating excuse makery. There's too much on the line for the future of the Sens organization to let it rest on one point we can't know for sure. Let's not forget all the warning signs and all the bad, just as we shouldn't forget the promise and the good.

Well, I know one sentance that has never come out of my mouth is "wow, Spezza is really battling out there. He is really picking this team up"

N4L wrote:Yup it should and that's a big reason why people are starting to get turned off the site, all the needless fulffing about nothing.

Anyways, I think The Spezza thing has been beaten to death a 1000 times over. The arguements for and against him are most;y true for the most part and pretty well known to anyone who is objective at all.

This is basically how I feel about it. I have nothing to say about this topic until maybe the playoffs, where we'll see Spezza's consistency tested.

Ya, I just dont care at this point. Sens are playign well, Spezza is for the most part, when the playoffs come around we'll see what he can do for this team.

rooneypoo wrote:Now this is more like the beginnings of a sensible conversation. Well done.



My opposition on this issue has been entirely a resistance to the silent but sure transformation of rumour into indisputable fact. I don't dispute that Spezza may have been injured. Just as, by the same token, I won't rule out the possibility that he also may not have been injured. A rumour is a rumour, and a fact is a fact, and until the rumour becomes fact, let's not cite it as such and use it as a catch-all excuse to explain what happened to Spezza this year. When you do that, you delve into the evil I have termed excuse makery, which is a disease that drives me to vomiting in my shirt pocket most unexpectedly. Too many people have been making excuses for this guy for too long.

Your breakdown of Spezza's season is entirely fair, although I think I would down "terrific" to "much improved, doing what he has to do to be an effective player." That may be entirely semantic, tho'. I agree, too, that Spezza isn't inconsistent in the same way that Kovalev is (or rather, was) -- that is, he doesn't suffer from that kind of day-to-day inconsistency.

Where we need more nuance is in the list of options you present. I don't have numbered scenarios like you, because I'm not sure that anything like this can be explained that simply (as you yourself seem to admit), but I do have a a number of points to think through.

First, some pre-ambles: Spezza does NOT suck, and we should NOT forget about the first dozen or so games of the season, or his last 8 games or so. But his inconsistency gives us cause for concern, and we can't forget the bad in remembering the good, either.

To that end, I would argue that Spezza IS inconsistent, but not in the same way as Kovalev, and that can find evidence of that inconsistency all through his career. It's a very different kind of beast, tho'. Spezza's production, and consistency, is tied directly to how the team is doing around him. He thrives in situations where the team is winning, where he has great linemates, where he isn't facing intense scrutiny and challenges, and isn't relied on so heavily. His most productive years coincide largely with periods of the team's success (2007-08 excluded, perhaps, although the team did have some early success that year and, unlike the next year for instance, they did win enough games to at least squeak into the playoffs) -- when he had great linemates, a strong team, etc. But when the team is not winning, when he's under pressure and relied on, when he faces adversity, he buckles and folds. That's when we start seeing boneheaded plays, a sloppy ethic, and mistakes understandable in a 20-year rookie but baffling in a 7-year vet of the NHL. Spezza's main issue, and probably the main factor in explaining his up and down seasons over the last 2 calendar years, is (I would argue) that he's not capable of putting the team on his back, of leading the charge when things get tough, of fighting through adversity. What some people call his "struggles," I call his essential identity as a great complementary player. What people excuse as his relative youth, his inexperience, his needing time to make adjustments, his "he isn't there yet" syndrome, I see all these things as functions of that identity as a complementary player -- an identity that he has revealed to us and confirmed for us again and again.

Of course, there is not definitive proof when interpretingthe development of something as complex as a human character, especially when we are denied access to certain data (as we are). My whole point, tho', is that anchoring our reading of Spezza's career trajectory entirely in one suggestion that we won't ever be able to prove definitively is foolhardy, and leads us down the path of nauseating excuse makery. There's too much on the line for the future of the Sens organization to let it rest on one point we can't know for sure. Let's not forget all the warning signs and all the bad, just as we shouldn't forget the promise and the good.

I really can't argue much with what you or Neely are saying.

What I guess it boils down to is:
A) Spezza's contract and the relative shallowness of our young offensive pool make him the central element of our team going forward
B) Spezza has to this point in his career been ancillary and complementary to players like Alfredsson and hasn't shown he can be the man himself.

I would say, however, that there have been times earlier in this season where he has been "the man," so to speak, and I think his game in Buffalo at least led the team from an offensive perspective, if not dominating all facets of the game.

I remarked in the pre-season when Spezza's weight dropped and his speed picked up that I wasn't particularly thrilled about it if it was going to lessen his strength, which I feel is the more critical issue. All the top forwards in the league - maybe with the exception of P. Kane, and that limits his effectiveness - have it in boatloads.

Watching Backstrom tonight, I have no doubt that if Ovechkin ever left DC, he could step in and be the main offensive guy. He's got Forsberg-like strength with the puck to help him put his skill to good use. Strength also comes into play when you talk about a player "putting the team on his back," such as in Alfredsson's short-handed goal with Getzlaf draped over him in Game 5 of the SCF.

Spezza's got the skill, the speed (now) and IMO the savvy to get the puck to dangerous areas, but he hasn't shown often enough the strength to help him keep it there. This is what I think causes him to make many of his stupid decisions, like those irritating passes where he no-look flings the puck out from behind the net.

That doesn't mean he hasn't shown it at all, though, and I think the possible injury issues (especially in regards to the back) cloud the issue somewhat. So I'll add:

C) Evaluating whether Spezza can ever be "the man" is difficult because we haven't known the extent, if there be any, of injury problems preventing him from being strong with the puck.

Of course, if you do give him the injury pass it's at best the lesser of two evils, because then he's an injury risk which also makes him difficult to build around. Lastly, though:

D) Spezza still has value as a top-notch complementary guy, if not the same level of value as he would as a franchise player.

So, this is where I and I think most of the people that seem to be "pro-Spezza" draw the line: determining whether we want to deal Spezza depends mostly on the return for him. If some team offers us players down the road that could one day be "the guy" for us, I'd take it (but that's IMO unlikely). If we're only getting someone who could at best be a complementary player down the road, I'd be less inclined to bite.

Having cap-space is nice, but not as valuable when considering that we're never going to attract top-of-the-line free agents and almost all UFA signings are overpaid, unless it's a risky, lots to lose but lots to gain move. It's the same deal when I hear people talking about how we should move Kuba: if we want to replace him on the free agent market, the best thing we could hope for would be to get a player of his calibre, at his salary.

N4L wrote:Ya, I just dont care at this point. Sens are playign well, Spezza is for the most part, when the playoffs come around we'll see what he can do for this team.

I guess July 1, 2010 just feels really close, for me.

I have said a bunch of times, tho', yeah, don't subtract anything from this team right now, loving how we're playing.

asq2 wrote:

I really can't argue much with what you or Neely are saying.

What I guess it boils down to is:
A) Spezza's contract and the relative shallowness of our young offensive pool make him the central element of our team going forward
B) Spezza has to this point in his career been ancillary and complementary to players like Alfredsson and hasn't shown he can be the man himself.

I would say, however, that there have been times earlier in this season where he has been "the man," so to speak, and I think his game in Buffalo at least led the team from an offensive perspective, if not dominating all facets of the game.

I remarked in the pre-season when Spezza's weight dropped and his speed picked up that I wasn't particularly thrilled about it if it was going to lessen his strength, which I feel is the more critical issue. All the top forwards in the league - maybe with the exception of P. Kane, and that limits his effectiveness - have it in boatloads.

Watching Backstrom tonight, I have no doubt that if Ovechkin ever left DC, he could step in and be the main offensive guy. He's got Forsberg-like strength with the puck to help him put his skill to good use. Strength also comes into play when you talk about a player "putting the team on his back," such as in Alfredsson's short-handed goal with Getzlaf draped over him in Game 5 of the SCF.

Spezza's got the skill, the speed (now) and IMO the savvy to get the puck to dangerous areas, but he hasn't shown often enough the strength to help him keep it there. This is what I think causes him to make many of his stupid decisions, like those irritating passes where he no-look flings the puck out from behind the net.

That doesn't mean he hasn't shown it at all, though, and I think the possible injury issues (especially in regards to the back) cloud the issue somewhat. So I'll add:

C) Evaluating whether Spezza can ever be "the man" is difficult because we haven't known the extent, if there be any, of injury problems preventing him from being strong with the puck.

Of course, if you do give him the injury pass it's at best the lesser of two evils, because then he's an injury risk which also makes him difficult to build around. Lastly, though:

D) Spezza still has value as a top-notch complementary guy, if not the same level of value as he would as a franchise player.

So, this is where I and I think most of the people that seem to be "pro-Spezza" draw the line: determining whether we want to deal Spezza depends mostly on the return for him. If some team offers us players down the road that could one day be "the guy" for us, I'd take it (but that's IMO unlikely). If we're only getting someone who could at best be a complementary player down the road, I'd be less inclined to bite.

Having cap-space is nice, but not as valuable when considering that we're never going to attract top-of-the-line free agents and almost all UFA signings are overpaid, unless it's a risky, lots to lose but lots to gain move. It's the same deal when I hear people talking about how we should move Kuba: if we want to replace him on the free agent market, the best thing we could hope for would be to get a player of his calibre, at his salary.

I'm just not entirely comfortable with a $7 mil player (a figure that represents 1/8th of a team's current salary cap) being a complementary guy, I guess. There have been occasions where he's been otherwise, but they are few and far between, and the character question haunts him. And if it's injuries getting in the way, then as you say, that raises an equally set of troubling questions.

The key point to underscore is that if you can get someone to replace 75% of his offence (i.e., 60+ points a year) for 50% of his salary (so, say $3.5 or $4 mil), you win in this cap world because you now have created a few millions dollars of space to improve the roster in other ways. I of course have a guy like Andy Macdonald in mind here.

Fair value on Spezza in a trade is a tricky question, tho'. Can you use a great complementary player to bring in a potential franchise guy? I dunno. Maybe from a team desperate to bring in a big name -- an EDM, etc. Certainly I'm not advocating trading Spezza for magic beans, and certainly we shouldn't be looking into this until the off-season, when we've had a chance to evaluate his latest playoff performance. But make no mistake, management has to make up its mind on Spezza in the next four months, and it will be a decision of Chara/Redden-esque proportions in terms of settling (for better or worse) the makeup of the franchise for the next 4-5 years. Unless Spezza turns heads for the next 3 months, I lean on the side of playing it cautious in favour of the health of the franchise.

rooneypoo wrote:

asq2 wrote:

I really can't argue much with what you or Neely are saying.

What I guess it boils down to is:
A) Spezza's contract and the relative shallowness of our young offensive pool make him the central element of our team going forward
B) Spezza has to this point in his career been ancillary and complementary to players like Alfredsson and hasn't shown he can be the man himself.

I would say, however, that there have been times earlier in this season where he has been "the man," so to speak, and I think his game in Buffalo at least led the team from an offensive perspective, if not dominating all facets of the game.

I remarked in the pre-season when Spezza's weight dropped and his speed picked up that I wasn't particularly thrilled about it if it was going to lessen his strength, which I feel is the more critical issue. All the top forwards in the league - maybe with the exception of P. Kane, and that limits his effectiveness - have it in boatloads.

Watching Backstrom tonight, I have no doubt that if Ovechkin ever left DC, he could step in and be the main offensive guy. He's got Forsberg-like strength with the puck to help him put his skill to good use. Strength also comes into play when you talk about a player "putting the team on his back," such as in Alfredsson's short-handed goal with Getzlaf draped over him in Game 5 of the SCF.

Spezza's got the skill, the speed (now) and IMO the savvy to get the puck to dangerous areas, but he hasn't shown often enough the strength to help him keep it there. This is what I think causes him to make many of his stupid decisions, like those irritating passes where he no-look flings the puck out from behind the net.

That doesn't mean he hasn't shown it at all, though, and I think the possible injury issues (especially in regards to the back) cloud the issue somewhat. So I'll add:

C) Evaluating whether Spezza can ever be "the man" is difficult because we haven't known the extent, if there be any, of injury problems preventing him from being strong with the puck.

Of course, if you do give him the injury pass it's at best the lesser of two evils, because then he's an injury risk which also makes him difficult to build around. Lastly, though:

D) Spezza still has value as a top-notch complementary guy, if not the same level of value as he would as a franchise player.

So, this is where I and I think most of the people that seem to be "pro-Spezza" draw the line: determining whether we want to deal Spezza depends mostly on the return for him. If some team offers us players down the road that could one day be "the guy" for us, I'd take it (but that's IMO unlikely). If we're only getting someone who could at best be a complementary player down the road, I'd be less inclined to bite.

Having cap-space is nice, but not as valuable when considering that we're never going to attract top-of-the-line free agents and almost all UFA signings are overpaid, unless it's a risky, lots to lose but lots to gain move. It's the same deal when I hear people talking about how we should move Kuba: if we want to replace him on the free agent market, the best thing we could hope for would be to get a player of his calibre, at his salary.

I'm just not entirely comfortable with a $7 mil player (a figure that represents 1/8th of a team's current salary cap) being a complementary guy, I guess. There have been occasions where he's been otherwise, but they are few and far between, and the character question haunts him. And if it's injuries getting in the way, then as you say, that raises an equally set of troubling questions.

The key point to underscore is that if you can get someone to replace 75% of his offence (i.e., 60+ points a year) for 50% of his salary (so, say $3.5 or $4 mil), you win in this cap world because you now have created a few millions dollars of space to improve the roster in other ways. I of course have a guy like Andy Macdonald in mind here.

Fair value on Spezza in a trade is a tricky question, tho'. Can you use a great complementary player to bring in a potential franchise guy? I dunno. Maybe from a team desperate to bring in a big name -- an EDM, etc. Certainly I'm not advocating trading Spezza for magic beans, and certainly we shouldn't be looking into this until the off-season, when we've had a chance to evaluate his latest playoff performance. But make no mistake, management has to make up its mind on Spezza in the next four months, and it will be a decision of Chara/Redden-esque proportions in terms of settling (for better or worse) the makeup of the franchise for the next 4-5 years. Unless Spezza turns heads for the next 3 months, I lean on the side of playing it cautious in favour of the health of the franchise.

I think the biggest issue when trying to argue both sides, if there is only two sides, of this argument is the initial premise that either Spezza has the potential to be great and we should therefore hang onto him vs. the premise that Spezza has proven himself to be nothing more than a great complimentary player and will need to do something spectacular in order for that stance to change.

It's very difficult to prove either side especially, as you have pointed out Rooney, when we're talking about a player's character.

I'm not really sure Spezza IS the man but at 26 .. I think it's a bit early to tell. Players grow into a leadership role over the years and I think Spezza has what it takes based on what I've seen lately. Spezza is only 26 for crying out loud.

Only one person on this team is capable of singlehandedly taking us places and that's Alfie. Let's not forget Alfie's leadership and captaincy were questioned in Ottawa until we went to the SCF a few years ago. Does anyone question Alfredsson's role on the team ?

I think it's a bit much to expect Spezza to take the reins on the team when the best man for the job is still in the room (#11).

I am confident that you're not gonna trade Spezza for anyone better suited for the job. It'd have be like the Lindros trade of old and that's not gonna happen.

Hoags wrote:I'm not really sure Spezza IS the man but at 26 .. I think it's a bit early to tell. Players grow into a leadership role over the years and I think Spezza has what it takes based on what I've seen lately. Spezza is only 26 for crying out loud.

Only one person on this team is capable of singlehandedly taking us places and that's Alfie. Let's not forget Alfie's leadership and captaincy were questioned in Ottawa until we went to the SCF a few years ago. Does anyone question Alfredsson's role on the team ?

I think it's a bit much to expect Spezza to take the reins on the team when the best man for the job is still in the room (#11).

I am confident that you're not gonna trade Spezza for anyone better suited for the job. It'd have be like the Lindros trade of old and that's not gonna happen.

We've waited the better part of 7 seasons -- 3 contracts -- for Spezza to become the player he's supposed to be. 26-27 are supposed to be the beginning of your prime years as a hockey player, not the point when you finally shake off your rookie habits.

As for people questioning Alfie's leadership, the only people doing that were Toronto-centric media pundits getting their cheapshots in on a team that was down. Find me a sensible poster on this site who ever questioned Alfie.

rooneypoo wrote:

Hoags wrote:I'm not really sure Spezza IS the man but at 26 .. I think it's a bit early to tell. Players grow into a leadership role over the years and I think Spezza has what it takes based on what I've seen lately. Spezza is only 26 for crying out loud.

Only one person on this team is capable of singlehandedly taking us places and that's Alfie. Let's not forget Alfie's leadership and captaincy were questioned in Ottawa until we went to the SCF a few years ago. Does anyone question Alfredsson's role on the team ?

I think it's a bit much to expect Spezza to take the reins on the team when the best man for the job is still in the room (#11).

I am confident that you're not gonna trade Spezza for anyone better suited for the job. It'd have be like the Lindros trade of old and that's not gonna happen.

We've waited the better part of 7 seasons -- 3 contracts -- for Spezza to become the player he's supposed to be. 26-27 are supposed to be the beginning of your prime years as a hockey player, not the point when you finally shake off your rookie habits.

As for people questioning Alfie's leadership, the only people doing that were Toronto-centric media pundits getting their cheapshots in on a team that was down. Find me a sensible poster on this site who ever questioned Alfie.

... and I will personally flog him.

rooneypoo wrote:

Hoags wrote:I'm not really sure Spezza IS the man but at 26 .. I think it's a bit early to tell. Players grow into a leadership role over the years and I think Spezza has what it takes based on what I've seen lately. Spezza is only 26 for crying out loud.

Only one person on this team is capable of singlehandedly taking us places and that's Alfie. Let's not forget Alfie's leadership and captaincy were questioned in Ottawa until we went to the SCF a few years ago. Does anyone question Alfredsson's role on the team ?

I think it's a bit much to expect Spezza to take the reins on the team when the best man for the job is still in the room (#11).

I am confident that you're not gonna trade Spezza for anyone better suited for the job. It'd have be like the Lindros trade of old and that's not gonna happen.

We've waited the better part of 7 seasons -- 3 contracts -- for Spezza to become the player he's supposed to be. 26-27 are supposed to be the beginning of your prime years as a hockey player, not the point when you finally shake off your rookie habits.

As for people questioning Alfie's leadership, the only people doing that were Toronto-centric media pundits getting their cheapshots in on a team that was down. Find me a sensible poster on this site who ever questioned Alfie.

Alfie ended the 05-06 playoffs with arguably a career worst performance, then an awful beginning of the 06-07 season. I've always trusted the Captain's leadership but I wasn't surprised to hear some saying he sucked during that stretch.

Still, compared to Spezza's 7 year-consistency issues it's probably nothing at all, but I won't compare any player on this team to Alfredsson.

When did Alfie go from an exciting late draft acquisition to the heart and soul of the Sens ? When did he become sacred and untouchable in Ottawa.
I seem to remember all those first/2nd round exits, getting swept by the Laffs etc. and people questioning Alfie as captain of this team in the media, among other things.

I think we're better off hitching our wagon to Spezza and surrounding him with the best talent we can. This team's overall talent level is going downhill with Heatley gone and Alfie/Kovalev getting older. Trading Spezza for a bunch of lesser players is only going to make us worse

I could maybe see Spezza for Vinnie (for example) .. but people are complaining about Spezza's contract, how would you like Lecavalier on the books for the next decade ? And Vinnie doesn't seem to be so good without St.Louis which tells me even the best players need a great supporting cast, it's a team sport after all.

Definitely deserves some props tonight.

I thought he played a helluva game.