GM Hockey

You are not connected. Please login or register

GM Hockey » The other NHL teams » General Hockey talk » General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league

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

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 36 ... 67  Next

Go down  Message [Page 6 of 67]

Ev


Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Riprock wrote:Another point is that a tean like Pittsburgh that was a bottom team for 4 years went from bottom to up in a couple of years. I don't think Edmonton will be as fast, but my point is Ottawa could have with the team they already had.

Because of Crosby and Malkin whom the Sens don't have...and a legit #1 goalie they drafted 1st overall.

shabbs


Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Big Ev wrote:
Riprock wrote:Another point is that a tean like Pittsburgh that was a bottom team for 4 years went from bottom to up in a couple of years. I don't think Edmonton will be as fast, but my point is Ottawa could have with the team they already had.

Because of Crosby and Malkin whom the Sens don't have...and a legit #1 goalie they drafted 1st overall.
Worked out nicely for them eh... Fleury, Malkin, Crosby... almost too nicely... Wink

shabbs


Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Crosby Return Part II Watch:

Josh Yohe: Crosby not skating on regular line at practice which would seem to indicate he isn't playing tomorrow.

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
shabbs wrote:Rags lost to the Hawks last night... that's three in a row and 4 of their last 5.

What's with them giving up 12 goals in 3 games? Torts is gonna have a Dung fit.

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Radulov to come to NA this week? Sounds like it's coming now for sure.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Crosby may return on Thursday vs the Rangers in NY.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=389963

Riprock

Riprock
All-Star
All-Star
Big Ev wrote:
Riprock wrote:Another point is that a tean like Pittsburgh that was a bottom team for 4 years went from bottom to up in a couple of years. I don't think Edmonton will be as fast, but my point is Ottawa could have with the team they already had.

Because of Crosby and Malkin whom the Sens don't have...and a legit #1 goalie they drafted 1st overall.

Interesting how that works, that a top pick is more likely to draft a star.

Turned out pretty nice for them I'd say.

Edmonton doesn't have a Spezza, Alfredsson or Karlsson. If Ottawa had the picks that turned into Hall and Nugent-Hopkins they'd be better. That is the only point I was making. Then it turned into a discussion about having all the best players, and that if Ottawa had those two, they wouldn't have some of the bottom 6 players they have, etc.

Like you say Zibanejad > Coutirier, but anyone who says Zibanejad > Nugent-Hopkins is silly. Or even Landeskog.

Funny how a lot of people were so excited to possibly have Landeskog or Huberdeau, and RNH at one point, but that now that we have Zibanejad it's like he was the best player all the time.

Ev

Ev
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Riprock wrote:
Big Ev wrote:
Riprock wrote:Another point is that a tean like Pittsburgh that was a bottom team for 4 years went from bottom to up in a couple of years. I don't think Edmonton will be as fast, but my point is Ottawa could have with the team they already had.

Because of Crosby and Malkin whom the Sens don't have...and a legit #1 goalie they drafted 1st overall.

Interesting how that works, that a top pick is more likely to draft a star.

Turned out pretty nice for them I'd say.

Edmonton doesn't have a Spezza, Alfredsson or Karlsson. If Ottawa had the picks that turned into Hall and Nugent-Hopkins they'd be better. That is the only point I was making. Then it turned into a discussion about having all the best players, and that if Ottawa had those two, they wouldn't have some of the bottom 6 players they have, etc.

Like you say Zibanejad > Coutirier, but anyone who says Zibanejad > Nugent-Hopkins is silly. Or even Landeskog.

Funny how a lot of people were so excited to possibly have Landeskog or Huberdeau, and RNH at one point, but that now that we have Zibanejad it's like he was the best player all the time.

lol not even going to get into this comment....if you can't see the difference between drafting a Crosby over a guy like Hall, I don't know what to tell you. Penguins got very very lucky.

Riprock

Riprock
All-Star
All-Star
Good thing you aren't commenting cause I never said they were so you'd just be embarrassing yourself.

No idea how you even interpreted anything remotely close to me saying Crosby = Hall.

Riprock

Riprock
All-Star
All-Star
General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league - Page 6 300px-10

rooneypoo

rooneypoo
All-Star
All-Star
Riprock wrote:General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league - Page 6 300px-10

Dude, again, you don't have an argument beyond "it's awesome to draft awesome players," which is true only the narrowest of terms -- i.e., abstractly, where losing and other franchise realities have no bearing on the question.

Which is to say, you're either stating the obvious, or you're arguing for a purely abstract idea that is, by definition, not obtainable here and now in the real world where organizations have to deal with all the intangible issues you want to sidestep.

Of course drafting high can do good for a team. Of course some franchises have drafted high and succeeded as a team because of those players. And of course drafting high tends to increase the odds of getting a franchise players. Who would deny any of that? But we've also seen how drafting high does nothing or very little for a team, how teams make bad choices at the table year after year, and how some players drafted high turn out to be busts. Drafting is a 50/50 proposition AT BEST. That's it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's not a foolproof strategy for drafting or for building a team, and there are SO MANY other factors involved.

Meanwhile, building a winning culture across the organization, at every level and in every way possible, has always led to longer lasting gains. I know I wouldn't say that Zibanejad is a better player than RNH or Landeskog, at the time of the draft or now, but I do know that picking a bit lower was a function of the organization making a number of steps in the right direction towards building a winning culture -- which, in the long run, is going to be more important than any single player you might get at a draft.

Again, nothing -- nothing -- is better for a team than building a winning culture.

spader

spader
All-Star
All-Star
rooneypoo wrote:
Riprock wrote:General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league - Page 6 300px-10

Dude, again, you don't have an argument beyond "it's awesome to draft awesome players," which is true only the narrowest of terms -- i.e., abstractly, where losing and other franchise realities have no bearing on the question.

Which is to say, you're either stating the obvious, or you're arguing for a purely abstract idea that is, by definition, not obtainable here and now in the real world where organizations have to deal with all the intangible issues you want to sidestep.

Of course drafting high can do good for a team. Of course some franchises have drafted high and succeeded as a team because of those players. And of course drafting high tends to increase the odds of getting a franchise players. Who would deny any of that? But we've also seen how drafting high does nothing or very little for a team, how teams make bad choices at the table year after year, and how some players drafted high turn out to be busts. Drafting is a 50/50 proposition AT BEST. That's it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's not a foolproof strategy for drafting or for building a team, and there are SO MANY other factors involved.

Meanwhile, building a winning culture across the organization, at every level and in every way possible, has always led to longer lasting gains. I know I wouldn't say that Zibanejad is a better player than RNH or Landeskog, at the time of the draft or now, but I do know that picking a bit lower was a function of the organization making a number of steps in the right direction towards building a winning culture -- which, in the long run, is going to be more important than any single player you might get at a draft.

Again, nothing -- nothing -- is better for a team than building a winning culture.

Except Crosby. Sarcasm

NEELY


Mod
Mod
Riprock wrote:Good thing you aren't commenting cause I never said they were so you'd just be embarrassing yourself.

No idea how you even interpreted anything remotely close to me saying Crosby = Hall.

I'll comment. CBJ, NYI, EDM, WNN, FLR... where are those bottom feeders? A bad organizaion is a bad organization. If it wasn't for Mario you wouldn't even be talking about Pens because they would be renamed playing in Ontario.

NEELY


Mod
Mod
rooneypoo wrote:
Riprock wrote:General Hockey Talk - Injuries, signings, factoids + other news from around the league - Page 6 300px-10

Dude, again, you don't have an argument beyond "it's awesome to draft awesome players," which is true only the narrowest of terms -- i.e., abstractly, where losing and other franchise realities have no bearing on the question.

Which is to say, you're either stating the obvious, or you're arguing for a purely abstract idea that is, by definition, not obtainable here and now in the real world where organizations have to deal with all the intangible issues you want to sidestep.

Of course drafting high can do good for a team. Of course some franchises have drafted high and succeeded as a team because of those players. And of course drafting high tends to increase the odds of getting a franchise players. Who would deny any of that? But we've also seen how drafting high does nothing or very little for a team, how teams make bad choices at the table year after year, and how some players drafted high turn out to be busts. Drafting is a 50/50 proposition AT BEST. That's it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's not a foolproof strategy for drafting or for building a team, and there are SO MANY other factors involved.

Meanwhile, building a winning culture across the organization, at every level and in every way possible, has always led to longer lasting gains. I know I wouldn't say that Zibanejad is a better player than RNH or Landeskog, at the time of the draft or now, but I do know that picking a bit lower was a function of the organization making a number of steps in the right direction towards building a winning culture -- which, in the long run, is going to be more important than any single player you might get at a draft.

Again, nothing -- nothing -- is better for a team than building a winning culture.

Everyone knows what Dash thinks about this and no one in the world agrees with him. A loser is a loser is a loser. NHL or otherwise.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Detroit hasn't had a top 10 draft in like a billion years, yet they keep winning and are always competitive. They've been able to foster a winning culture for sure and that's been working very well for them, along with some pretty awesome drafting.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Caps with a huge 4-3 win over Boston today. Big opportunity for the Sens to get to within 1 point of the NE Division lead.

shabbs

shabbs
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Markov to make Habs debut tonight in Vancouver.

PTFlea

PTFlea
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
shabbs wrote:Markov to make Habs debut tonight in Vancouver.

...and then he'll be hurt again for the next 6 months.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 6 of 67]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 36 ... 67  Next

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