View Single Post
11-22-2012, 01:43 PM
Bleach Clean
Bleach Clean's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,017
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale View Post
Interesting how you ask for a sample of 80+ games when Lupul only played 66 this year. And obviouslu his PPG in his first few seasons in the league will be less than they would be in his prime-exactly the reason why I don't expect Kadri to make a significant impact alone that would make it worthwhile to pass up on Lupul for the next few years when we have the best shot at the cup.

Ok, take 16 games from his 1st TO season and tack them on to make 82. His PPG pro-rated is 10 points in 16 additional games. Add that to his break out last year and you get 77 points in 82 games. Find me that rate while he played RW. Until you do, this argument is unlikely to progress.

Okay, so we can agree to disagree on whether or not we need to add a top-6 forward. Fine, I guess it's case closed.

Oh we do disagree, that much is known. But this was about the abstract concepts of value and need - Glad you know see the light.

I don't understand. I'm not saying Lupul would help us more than the rest of the Leafs roster combined. I think it's fairly likely that Kulemin and Kadri combined generate more offense than Lupul alone. That is all.

You know what's hilarious about this? I initially said Kadri + the increased value of the remaining piece(s) is greater than targeting Lupul alone. Then, it was misconstrued by you to say that I favoured Kadri alone over Lupul. When in actual terms, what you just posted here is the exact argument I initially made. Kadri + the increased value of a secondary piece (Kulemin) is greater than Lupul alone. The only way you get Kulemin included in addition to Kadri is that Kadri is "devalued" as an unproven prospect.

Meaning, if all remaining parts are equal, you actually agree with my initial statement. You've come 180 degrees in this and you don't even know it.

Well, if we look at past cup winners, their playoff scoring was way higher than ours? Why is that?

Me thinks coaching has more to do with this than some would like to admit. Of course, better players help too. But those players represent a _want_ to improve, not a _need_. Bolster an already strong position, not have to remedy a complete weakness = big difference.

No matter what you say Lupul produced at his best clip in TO given proper linemates and ice time. It literally makes no sense why you would think your reason is more likely.

To the bold line, just add "and because he played on the LW". Because that's what happened. And didn't Lupul play with Richards and Carter in PHI? I seem to recall that. Oh, and Hemsky in EDM.

It's not just about points either. If we can get a playmaker to help create chemistry so we're not running a helicopter line that results in Kesler wearing himself down, it would help benefit the entire team as a whole. And again, given top-6 minutes and playing with the Sedins on the PP will boost his point totals, if that's what you care about.

Who is Lupul going to unseat on the first PP unit? I'm not disagreeing with your hypothesis, I just don't feel Lupul is a marked increase on what we have.

I expect him to show flashes of offensive instinct but to not be consistent enough in his rookie year to merit getting top-6 minutes. So maybe around 40 points, while being a bit of a detriment on the ice while he's not producing. Eventually in a couple of years he would be well adjusted enough to put up 60-70 points, but I see that as being at least 3 years down the road. This is only my opinion though, but if you think it's more likely Lupul get's a concussion in his first game and Kadri wins the Calder, go ahead.

Then why haven't you showed me Kadri is able to play RW as well as he can LW? Since a highlights video doesn't count, show me a large sample size where Kadri played RW and did well there. And even that doesn't neccessarily mean he's capable of doing it at the NHL level.

I'm saying it's unreasonable to ask me to prove Lupul can produce at RW given top-6 minutes, when you've never proven Kadri can produce as well as he has on RW either.

I don't need to show sample in a Lupul RW vs. Lupul LW argument: the stats are there to see. 77 in 82. But you have yet to show a sample in direct counter.

On Kadri: The bold line is the reason I don't show a sample for Kadri at RW. It's meaningless without first determining what wing he will likely play on in the NHL. From what he is listed at from line-ups, switching from LW to C to RW, he has produced at a PPG clip in the AHL. Meaning his production doesn't fall off moving around. To contrast, we have the NHL sample for Lupul.

Just as an aside: In his brief time in the NHL, Kadri has shown to be the second best possession player (behind Grabovski (better than Lupul/Kessel)) over that span. Take that for what it's worth.

Saying you don't want Lupul because he's injury prone is like me saying Kadri's a bust because he hasn't even made one of the worst teams in the league. Both are unfair statements to make, as there are a lot more factors at play.

What are the other factors to a player being injured? And injured consistently enough over his entire career so as to not complete a single full season - ever.

Answer 1: Answered previously, the combined offense of Kadri and Kulemin, coupled with Kulemin's two-way game and physicality, tilt it slightly in their favour, but not by much. Just because I say Lupul > Kadri doesn't mean I'd prefer Lupul to Kadri + anyone else.

LOL, do you even realize that you are agreeing with my original premise? This is beautiful.

One question though: Wouldn't the cup contending team, or any team for that matter, favour the legit 1st line talent over a boom/bust prospect and a 2nd/3rd line tweener? Seems like the logical thing to do wouldn't it?

Answer 2: In Philly(Aged 24/25), Lupul was a legit top-6 player, on pace for almost 60 points/82 games in his two seasons there. He was then stuck on the third line in Anaheim, and had tension with Carlyle, so got traded.

Why was he traded from PHI?

So Lupul went from legit 1st line talent to cap dump in value because he had tension with Carlyle? Please explain.

How come you can't show me PPG pace on EDM or PHI for Lupul? I'm pretty sure he got 1st line ice in both places because he played with Richards/Briere and Hemsky.

Why on earth should we only compare Kesler-Kessel and not Booth-Bozak? Lupul will be generating chances for both Kesler and Booth. And again, you don't think given PP time with the Sedins is as good as playing with Kessel?

I hadn't realized that Kessel was this good, somehow magicaly transforming a tweener winger(same definition I'd give Higgins) into a PPG player, while his centre remains a 40s point player.

Isn't Booth a 40's point player too? Production wise, isn't that what Bozak put up last year (47)?

I'm unsure what point you are making here.

Bleach Clean is online now