View Single Post
03-20-2004, 11:11 PM
Park #2
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Edge
Wait you can't describe what YOU saw in a player and YOUR opinions because it would reveal several things?

Dube was trainwrecked before Savard was even seriously in the picture.

But i thought your whole original point in the first place was that Dube wasn't good enough for the NHL. Now it's because Savard was there? Which is it, those are too opposite ends of the extreme.

You asked in another post if Gagne would have played for the Rangers - and I believe he would have - for the same reasons that York/Savard did. It is subjective - it is an opinion. Funny but isn't he also another non-physical smallish player from the Q as well?

the team just keeps trading to plug the holes they created themselves in the first place.

Needless to say Dube was never given a chance and he knew where he was going with this franchise which is why he left. The team just can't get its eyes off the next star prize and so they just keep pushing the kids back to buy more and more time. unfortunatly they've been buying time for the better part of a decade now.
The word "saw" was supposed to be "say". I think I've said CLEARLY what I thought of the player. He was small, hated to get hit, didn't like to work in the corners. How can I prove this? I don't know - you tell me. He's not been given another chance for a reason - and it's not because he loves the Alps. It's because he is not an NHL player. The proof? I guess the proof is that if he was an NHL caliber player, he'd be here - with another team and a new opportunity.

Hate to say it, but despite being "there" as you say, you are just wrong on Savard/Dube. Savard and Dube both played on the same Hartford team their first year of pro hockey. Savard played in 58 games, had 21 goals and 53 assists for 74 points. Dube played in 79 games, had 11 goals and 46 assists for 57 points. Do you think this may have had an affect on the way the organization viewed both players? In fact, that year Dube was called up once (albeit for two games) while Savard stayed in Hartford. Arguably, Dube had the spot and lost it. MY argument was that he was not good enough for the NHL. The Rangers realized it, and Savard stole his spot - he was good enough. To compare Gagne (a smallish foward from the Q) to Dube is a bit absurd. Savard was a smallish forward from the OHL and he got the opportunity. Reason: Talent and the ability to progress up the ladder.

As for your statement: "the team just keeps trading to plug the holes they created themselves in the first place." Well, I am not defending the team's horrible committment to aged players. My argument was that poor evaluation, mislabeling, and a lack of coherent system in place to develop what were indeed poor draft picks (Again, particularly between 95-99) to begin with crippled the organization.

Park #2 is offline