Thread: Fisher mistake?
View Single Post
03-29-2011, 09:41 AM
Mod Supervisor
TMI's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 46,790
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by PredsV82 View Post
my counterpoint to that is, how likely is it that we would land a "real scoring threat" via free agency anyway?

and for that matter, how many "real scoring threats" get traded?

as I pointed out before, poile has obviously decided that they way for the preds to be successful is not to look for a single superstar scorer but to roll three nearly equal lines in hopes that they will all be somewhat productive while still being defensively responsible and that their production will dovetail so that nobody can shut down all three lines on any given night. you can agree or disagree that this is a good thing, but the point is so far that plan looks like its gonna get us into the playoffs this year and we are certainly gonna be set to try it again next year.
Agreed. People seem to think that any player is available if one player was available. I agree with btn's quote below in that we probably gave up too much to get him, but it was around the trade deadline. Those are the rules. Goc had just gone down for the season, O'Reilly was either already out for the season or it was assumed he would be, and Lombardi's situation isn't even that great for next season at this point. That left us Legwand, Wilson, Spaling, Smithson down the middle and the ability to make call ups. I wouldn't doubt for a second if Poile's thought was something along the lines of "Fisher could come on and be a more offensive Legwand, or he can come in, cover some of Legwand's defensive responsibilities, and open up Leggy to score more points." Can't say for sure that's what he thought, as I've never had a conversation with him about it, but it does seem that Fisher has allowed Legwand to open up. Of course, Legwand tends to play his best hockey at this point in the season, so who knows the real effect. That's for a much bigger stathead than me to figure out.

He is what he is... Legwand-lite on offense and defense, but with similar speed, a ton more grit, and he has a hotter wife. It's always nice to look at the "what ifs", but it's a lot easier to look around the league and say "why did we get X instead of X?". It's much harder to be the guy on the phone making the moves. Fisher wanted to come here if he had to go anywhere. Who's to say that Versteeg, Penner, or (especially) Boyes were even available to us.

Originally Posted by barrytrotzsneck View Post
the *only* argument I could\would make would be that we misused the assets a bit to land a player that has, THUS FAR, looked to be more of what we already have. Would those assets have been better spent on someone like Penner? Or Versteeg? Or even Boyes?

All have outscored Fisher since being traded...but...supposedly, the X-factor for Fisher is in big games\playoff situations. I don't really care if Fisher gets outscored by 20 goals by the other three in the regular season, as long as he's the one doing the scoring in the playoffs.
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
I wouldn't call 5 playoffs a small sample size. Assuming that the best and luckiest players might get to play for 20 seasons, it's a very decent sample.
Five play off series isn't exactly a small sample size, but the sample size of play off series where we should have been successful is incredibly small. What? MAYBE two series? That's only IF you want to argue that. Our best team going into the play offs was 06-07, and we just happened to match up with the team tied with us in most wins in the West at 51... I believe the most wins in the league that year was 53. It's much easier to say that we should have won more than one game that year than it is to say we should have won any of our play off series so far. It's all about context

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying I'm ok with first round exits. I'm simply saying that the sample size of five first round exists isn't exactly damning. No one was more pissed off than me as I left that game 5 in 2007. That I can promise...

TMI is offline   Reply With Quote