View Single Post
Old
05-13-2011, 03:48 PM
  #407
Markstrom Rules
Sup
 
Markstrom Rules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: United States
Posts: 16,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timetraveler023 View Post
Grabner may not have picked his play up had he not been waived. So we still could have sucked and had a high pick along with a player that may or may not have improved over the course of the season.
Grabner might not have picked up his play, true. But I think that's a convenient thing for you to say and then also go and lament about Grabner's rookie season and what we lost.

Quote:
But since we are pretending everything dumb that happens doesn't actually happen because of rampant insecurity, I agree. Screw Grabner, we don't need talented young players. We're rebuilding. lol wait what

And we certainly don't need them when there's the potential of going from worst team in the east to second worst.
I'm just tired of hearing about Grabner. And it's not because I can't stand to be reminded of him or "rampant insecurity". I honestly could care less about Grabner. It's just annoying hearing about him over and over and "how the Panthers messed up". I'd bet Panthers fans are still going to be pining over this 5 years from now. For my part, as I said, I couldn't care less and am actually glad things worked out the way they did. Of course we need talented young players, but I'd rather as I said have one young player with the highest upside than have two with lesser potential. We can debate who has what potential until the cows come home, it's just my opinion that Landeskog and Couturier, even Huberdeau, have higher potential. It's not just as simple as we could have had two young talented players instead of one.

Quote:
Tallon was probably still going to blow the team up and send them on their magnificent spiral into oblivion, anyway. He wants his picks and players. That's fine. I just don't know why people are so sensitive to blunders. It's hard to prefer the unproven #3 pick over a rookie whom by your own estimation would have been effective enough to hurt our draft position, even if only one or two draft spots - potentially still allowing us to pick in the top 5 or 6. I know it's all uncertain, but come on. Screw Grabner? We got the short end of the stick. Why is that so hard to handle? It is what it is.

The team might not have even been blown up. Who knows what our record would have been with Grabner. I've said before that waiving Grabner was a mistake - even though I like the way it worked out - yes, at the time it was a mistake. I'm not sensitive to blunders. Yes, we got the short end of the stick. But as I said, I don't care, I'd rather have Landeskog or Couturier.


Quote:
Originally Posted by timetraveler023 View Post
It's just hard to peg him as a one-hit wonder. You see guys make a living in front of the net or play with great linemates that throw out a fluke season, but Grabner was genuinely fun to watch over the course of the season. We got nothing for a promising young player. I hope they're willing to accept that fact instead of playing it off because giving up on a player so quickly is an interesting tweak to their plans of working with and developing young players.
I'm not saying he was a one hit wonder. I just think it's too early to think of him as some consistent 30 goal scorer. There've been plenty of guys who had big years early on who never surpassed them or even didn't even match them again. I'm not saying this will happen with Grabner, but you never know. Even if he does become a consistent 30 goal scorer, so what, that doesn't make him some superstar. I mean usually when you have the 3rd overall pick you are expecting more than that.

We all know why Grabner was waived, let's not get cute or play dumb.

Markstrom Rules is offline