: Larry Brooks:
Slats Stays The Course
View Single Post
03-06-2010, 05:28 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Fleming Island, Fl
Originally Posted by
That's one way of looking at his worth and value to the team. The reason I particularly dislike players like Jokinen and Gomez is because, IMHO, they bring more cons than pros. Their offensive output isn't worth all of the flaws they bring. Gomez worked for a team like NJ, which was incredibly strong at every position and could mask his many deficiencies.
But when he's not on a team that great, it's not the same. These players are not efficient. Their points come at a price. Poor defense, turnovers, and worst of all, an enormous amount of wasted possessions and offensive zone opportunities. And I've held this opinion of both of these players long before they were ever associated with the Rangers.
It's not just bad luck that Jokinen has played in 863 regular season, and just 6 playoff games. If your team is built in a way where he's one of your key players, you're not going to go very far .
You can attribute some of that to Jokinen, but it's not his fault he's played for crap organizations (Florida, Isles, bad Kings, etc...) and he's hardly alone (Shane Doan, anyone?) in that department. Besides, Gomez is largely the same in your estimation and he won a Cup. I'd take Jokinen over Gomez, Scott really rubbed me the wrong way.
Jokinen isn't a franchise player, but he's not a bad investment if his contract isn't terrible and he's centering your 2nd line. Besides, we got rid of Kotalik.
Originally Posted by
If I recall, the Blues are ranked #1. You'll note they are having a down year, and I know that they faced coaching problems, but I believe there's more to it. The Blues have the same problem the Rangers do.
They have a wealth of great young defense, and some very, very attractive forward prospects. But they don't have that one great forward. Maybe it will be Eller (for the record, I think he will be a very good second liner), but they don't right now, and it's hurting them offensively.
Personally, if I was doing the rankings, the Blues would not be first, and the Rangers would not be third. They'd both be in the top ten, because they each have a lot of good prospects. But they don't have many great prospects, especially where forwards are concerned.
The problem with ranking teams in terms of organizational prospect strength is that many of the best prospects don't stay prospects for very long. They get to the NHL in a hurry, and become very good players by the age of 22-23. So a team's prospect pool may not be the best, but their NHL team can be carrying one, two, or sometimes even more very, very good young players that are of prospect age.
Lots of teams have the same problem (scoring) that the Rangers do - Devils, Bruins, Coyotes, Blues, etc... It's an epidemic.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by haohmaru