You are not connected. Please login or register

General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 35 ... 67  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 67]

tim1_2


Franchise Player
Franchise Player
SpezDispenser wrote:Dmitry Chesnokov ‏ @dchesnokov Reply Retweet Favorite Open
After Radulov's club lost their playoff series today, a Q: Is Radulov staying in Ufa? Radulov: "No comments." (via SovSport) #Preds


Radulov coming over finally?

That'd be very exciting, and a potential boon for Nashville.

PTFlea


Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Yeah, the final piece perhaps. Although KHL hockey and NHL hockey are starkly different.

Riprock


All-Star
All-Star
But Radulov has shown to be an NHL star.

SeawaySensFan

avatar
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
SpezDispenser wrote:Yeah, the final piece perhaps. Although KHL hockey and NHL hockey are starkly different.

It's been an interesting time because Radulov's potential return has been mentioned several times throughout the season so far.

shabbs

avatar
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Radulov's club has been eliminated... will he be making his way over... hmmm...

SensHulk

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
shabbs wrote:Radulov's club has been eliminated... will he be making his way over... hmmm...

Makes sense if he does come over. He presumably wants to burn off the last year of his ELC...

tim1_2

avatar
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Michallica wrote:
shabbs wrote:Radulov's club has been eliminated... will he be making his way over... hmmm...

Makes sense if he does come over. He presumably wants to burn off the last year of his ELC...

Yep. This is the time to do it. All he wanted was lots of money, and the KHL gave him that, whereas he was stuck with his ELC here. Damn Ruskies.

spader

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
SeawaySensFan wrote:
tim1_2 wrote:
Riprock wrote:Taylor Hall would be the same player, maybe even better with Spezza as his center. Ryan Nugent-Hopkins would have meant Turris would not have been needed, thus we'd still have Rundblad and a 2nd round pick in Ottawa. Despite injury, RNH is probably the odds on favourite to win the Calder.

This is a really weird hypothetical discussion to have.

And Landeskog might get serious Calder consideration too...might be a crapshoot now.

See bolded. That's the bottom line in all of this. I don't get how anyone can speak in absolutes when it comes to pro athletes at all much less guys who haven't even played a single pro game.

If anything Ottawa is mitigating that risk by trading for guys (Turris, Bishop) who have already developed and proven themselves as pros.

Well put.

Riprock

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
Still early in his career in Ottawa, but Turris hasn't shown anything close to what Hall and Nugent-Hopkins have.

Those guys are very good players. They would be just as good on Ottawa. If you disagree, you might as well disagree that Stamkos or Tavares wouldn't be good in Ottawa.

rooneypoo

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
Riprock wrote:Still early in his career in Ottawa, but Turris hasn't shown anything close to what Hall and Nugent-Hopkins have.

Those guys are very good players. They would be just as good on Ottawa. If you disagree, you might as well disagree that Stamkos or Tavares wouldn't be good in Ottawa.

What you're not acknowledging is the potential cost, in a variety of other parts of the organization, that comes with losing -- i.e., losing culture, which is bad for bringing in FAs, for re-signing UFAs/RFAs, and your kids generally. It's not just "RNH or Zibanejad," for instance, when we look back on the last few months of the 2011 season. Does Anderson sign with us if we go in the tank? Do the kids like Greening, Butler, Condra, Smith, etc., develop like the did? Does Spezza and Alfie want to stay with us if we're a loser? What does losing long term do for a star RFA/UFA like Karlsson, when he hits those points? Or for trying to attract a guy like Parise this year?

If you ask me, fighting through that last half of the season last year as a team -- getting Anderson, developing the kids, coming out stronger as a group -- is more than enough to make up for the difference between, say, Zibanejad and RNH. There's nothing better for a franchise across the board than WINNING, point finale. Chasing after horizons in the form of high draft picks is a 50/50 endeavour at best -- for every PIT and CHI, there's also a FLA and CLB -- whereas winning is always a win/win proposition that does more for a team than any one (potential star) player could ever do.

SeawaySensFan

avatar
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Riprock wrote:Still early in his career in Ottawa, but Turris hasn't shown anything close to what Hall and Nugent-Hopkins have.

Those guys are very good players. They would be just as good on Ottawa. If you disagree, you might as well disagree that Stamkos or Tavares wouldn't be good in Ottawa.

What I'm saying is that you can't predict how good a player like that will be before they are drafted with 100 percent accuracy. And I'm also saying that no one knows what Ottawa would have done with those players had they drafted them.

I would also say that, had they played in Ottawa, no one knows what effect they would have had on the team as far as wins and losses go. There are too many factors to consider to say with certainty that Ottawa would be better or worse off if they had Edmonton's picks. We do know that Edmonton isn't much, if at all, better off right now.

Riprock

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
SeawaySensFan wrote:
Riprock wrote:Still early in his career in Ottawa, but Turris hasn't shown anything close to what Hall and Nugent-Hopkins have.

Those guys are very good players. They would be just as good on Ottawa. If you disagree, you might as well disagree that Stamkos or Tavares wouldn't be good in Ottawa.

What I'm saying is that you can't predict how good a player like that will be before they are drafted with 100 percent accuracy. And I'm also saying that no one knows what Ottawa would have done with those players had they drafted them.

I would also say that, had they played in Ottawa, no one knows what effect they would have had on the team as far as wins and losses go. There are too many factors to consider to say with certainty that Ottawa would be better or worse off if they had Edmonton's picks. We do know that Edmonton isn't much, if at all, better off right now.

I didn't suggest that, and if you read my replies to Evan in the Prospects thread, I said the same thing to him.

My only point was that Ottawa with those two would be better than Edmonton is now with them.

PTFlea

avatar
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
rooneypoo wrote:
Riprock wrote:Still early in his career in Ottawa, but Turris hasn't shown anything close to what Hall and Nugent-Hopkins have.

Those guys are very good players. They would be just as good on Ottawa. If you disagree, you might as well disagree that Stamkos or Tavares wouldn't be good in Ottawa.

What you're not acknowledging is the potential cost, in a variety of other parts of the organization, that comes with losing -- i.e., losing culture, which is bad
for bringing in FAs, for re-signing UFAs/RFAs, and your kids generally. It's not just "RNH or Zibanejad," for instance, when we look back on the last few months of the 2011 season. Does Anderson sign with us if we go in the tank? Do the kids like Greening, Butler, Condra, Smith, etc., develop like the did? Does Spezza and Alfie want to stay with us if we're a loser? What does losing long term do for a star RFA/UFA like Karlsson, when he hits those points? Or for trying to attract a guy like Parise this year?

If you ask me, fighting through that last half of the season last year as a team -- getting Anderson, developing the kids, coming out stronger as a group -- is more than enough to make up for the difference between, say, Zibanejad and RNH. There's nothing better for a franchise across the board than WINNING, point finale. Chasing after horizons in the form of high draft picks is a 50/50 endeavour at best -- for every PIT and CHI, there's also a FLA and CLB -- whereas winning is always a win/win proposition that does more for a team than any one (potential star) player could ever do.

/topic (IMO).

SeawaySensFan

avatar
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Riprock wrote:
SeawaySensFan wrote:
Riprock wrote:Still early in his career in Ottawa, but Turris hasn't shown anything close to what Hall and Nugent-Hopkins have.

Those guys are very good players. They would be just as good on Ottawa. If you disagree, you might as well disagree that Stamkos or Tavares wouldn't be good in Ottawa.

What I'm saying is that you can't predict how good a player like that will be before they are drafted with 100 percent accuracy. And I'm also saying that no one knows what Ottawa would have done with those players had they drafted them.

I would also say that, had they played in Ottawa, no one knows what effect they would have had on the team as far as wins and losses go. There are too many factors to consider to say with certainty that Ottawa would be better or worse off if they had Edmonton's picks. We do know that Edmonton isn't much, if at all, better off right now.

I didn't suggest that, and if you read my replies to Evan in the Prospects thread, I said the same thing to him.

My only point was that Ottawa with those two would be better than Edmonton is now with them.

And your point can't be made with certainty because you don't know how it would affect the makeup of the team or which players would be subtracted from the lineup to make room.

rooneypoo

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
SpezDispenser wrote:
rooneypoo wrote:
Riprock wrote:Still early in his career in Ottawa, but Turris hasn't shown anything close to what Hall and Nugent-Hopkins have.

Those guys are very good players. They would be just as good on Ottawa. If you disagree, you might as well disagree that Stamkos or Tavares wouldn't be good in Ottawa.

What you're not acknowledging is the potential cost, in a variety of other parts of the organization, that comes with losing -- i.e., losing culture, which is bad
for bringing in FAs, for re-signing UFAs/RFAs, and your kids generally. It's not just "RNH or Zibanejad," for instance, when we look back on the last few months of the 2011 season. Does Anderson sign with us if we go in the tank? Do the kids like Greening, Butler, Condra, Smith, etc., develop like the did? Does Spezza and Alfie want to stay with us if we're a loser? What does losing long term do for a star RFA/UFA like Karlsson, when he hits those points? Or for trying to attract a guy like Parise this year?

If you ask me, fighting through that last half of the season last year as a team -- getting Anderson, developing the kids, coming out stronger as a group -- is more than enough to make up for the difference between, say, Zibanejad and RNH. There's nothing better for a franchise across the board than WINNING, point finale. Chasing after horizons in the form of high draft picks is a 50/50 endeavour at best -- for every PIT and CHI, there's also a FLA and CLB -- whereas winning is always a win/win proposition that does more for a team than any one (potential star) player could ever do.

/topic (IMO).

If the argument is "Wouldn't it be great to have all the best players?", then that's not an argument, it's wishful thinking. Of course it would be great to get all the best players. But you can't just assume that we could have precisely this team we have now, with just RNH and Hall added, and nothing else changing. Dung doesn't work like that. It's a lot more complicated. There's a cost that comes with sucking.

Riprock

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
Wow, you guys are missing the whole point. This is all in response to SSF saying "see what tanking is worth".

So I asked if Ottawa would be different with those two instead of Edmonton, hypothetically.

Edmonton doesn't have Spezza Alfredsson, and Karlsson.

OBVIOUSLY there would be changes that can't be predicted as a result of changing history LOL. That was never my argument.

The argument was: is tanking actually not worthwhile, or is it dependent on the team? And SSF used tanking, when Edmonton is not tanking. What is happening is a simple result of 1/30 teams having to finish last, and they are that 1/30, for what could be the 3rd straight season. Reason is they haven't improved the team as a whole rather they picked up players that are and ill be part of the future.

Riprock

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
SpezDispenser wrote:
rooneypoo wrote:
Riprock wrote:Still early in his career in Ottawa, but Turris hasn't shown anything close to what Hall and Nugent-Hopkins have.

Those guys are very good players. They would be just as good on Ottawa. If you disagree, you might as well disagree that Stamkos or Tavares wouldn't be good in Ottawa.

What you're not acknowledging is the potential cost, in a variety of other parts of the organization, that comes with losing -- i.e., losing culture, which is bad
for bringing in FAs, for re-signing UFAs/RFAs, and your kids generally. It's not just "RNH or Zibanejad," for instance, when we look back on the last few months of the 2011 season. Does Anderson sign with us if we go in the tank? Do the kids like Greening, Butler, Condra, Smith, etc., develop like the did? Does Spezza and Alfie want to stay with us if we're a loser? What does losing long term do for a star RFA/UFA like Karlsson, when he hits those points? Or for trying to attract a guy like Parise this year?

If you ask me, fighting through that last half of the season last year as a team -- getting Anderson, developing the kids, coming out stronger as a group -- is more than enough to make up for the difference between, say, Zibanejad and RNH. There's nothing better for a franchise across the board than WINNING, point finale. Chasing after horizons in the form of high draft picks is a 50/50 endeavour at best -- for every PIT and CHI, there's also a FLA and CLB -- whereas winning is always a win/win proposition that does more for a team than any one (potential star) player could ever do.

/topic (IMO).

Ooops, I ought to stop then.

SeawaySensFan

avatar
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Riprock wrote:Wow, you guys are missing the whole point. This is all in response to SSF saying "see what tanking is worth".

So I asked if Ottawa would be different with those two instead of Edmonton, hypothetically.

Edmonton doesn't have Spezza Alfredsson, and Karlsson.

OBVIOUSLY there would be changes that can't be predicted as a result of changing history LOL. That was never my argument.

The argument was: is tanking actually not worthwhile, or is it dependent on the team? And SSF used tanking, when Edmonton is not tanking. What is happening is a simple result of 1/30 teams having to finish last, and they are that 1/30, for what could be the 3rd straight season. Reason is they haven't improved the team as a whole rather they picked up players that are and ill be part of the future.

Obviously Edmonton is not tanking. They just suck. But whether you suck or tank, you're somewhere in the same area of the standings, aren't you. So tanking is just about as worthwhile as sucking.

I can't summarize my point any better than that. Me lunch now.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 67]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 35 ... 67  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum