View Single Post
01-17-2013, 10:48 PM
Miller Time
Registered User
Miller Time's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,279
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

Veteran presence is great. But not at the expense of picking up young talent. Nobody had to show Yzerman how to play. Nobody had to show Subban or Price. Good players will develop no matter what. In fact, when you build with a bunch of kids it's probably even better because they grow up together.
and Yzerman made it out of the first round twice in his first 11 years...

go figure that the Wings started their run of dominance in the mid-90's with veteran guys like Coffey, Ciccarelli, Fetisov & Vernon playing big roles.

Of course, Yzerman was 29 by then, but if you ever hear him speak about his hockey education, he credits many of those veteran players with helping him mature & become the kind of leader he needed to be to be a winner.

Big difference btw coming in and scoring lots of points, and coming in and becoming the kind of team leader that "carries" a team into championship territory... Case in point, Alex Ovechkin.

It's not just about developping on the stat sheet, it's about becoming a winner... and not every good player is a "winner" (just like not every player who wins a ring is a key part of that team).

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And we have vets that we can keep. Hal Gill was supposedly a good vet, Josh Gorges can fill that role. We don't need to turn down good opportunities for the sake of keeping a vet. Markov is woth a hell of a lot more to us as trade bait than he is as a veteran leader.

I know a whole bunch of people are going to freak out on this but it's true. We just never seem to learn this lesson.
It's not just about having a veteran player around, or even a "good vet" from a locker room pov. It's important to have some veteran leadership/maturity in players who contribute in larger roles.

not "necessary", but important... and probably more now then ever as the current generation of young people/athlete were raised with far less instruction/maturity than previous generations... talent & skill is one thing, but being able to lead a group and make those around you better/elevate their games is a whole other skill.
Teams with star players with that kind of ability, are the ones who make the most of their opportunities. you want to build a culture in your team whereby the young talent you assemble learns who to excel in that way, not just in "getting mine".

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post

You wouldn't deal Markov for Filip Forsberg? Why not?

Who do you think will be the better player in two years or three years? How long do you think Forsberg will be in the league? And even if he flops... what are we losing here? And if he's great... what do we gain?

How the hell is this not worth the risk?
now that argument getting a little silly...

would i trade Markov for Forsberg today? Probably yes... and I'd be shocked if the Capitals accepted.

Markov is a huge ? to play a full season, let alone contribute anywhere close to where he used to.

Would i trade Plekanec for Forsber? Absolutely not. Forsberg looks good, but so have many young players yet to make their mark at the pro/NHL level. Plekanec is money in the bank, and is the kind of veteran leader who will rub off positively on any young player actually interested in learning (as the current camp observations with regards to Gally make abundantly clear).

If you made every trade based on speculation of "who will be better in 2-3 years", you'd be the Islanders or Oilers... stocked with young talent, which is nice, but devoid of "ready" talent.

By that logic, what stops you from trading talented 24-25 -26 year old players for the "next great prospect"?

no use taking an argument into absurd territory, does nothing but give the appearance of grasping at straws...

and for the most part, I do agree with long-term vision in building a roster, but extremmes in either direction are just as unproductive.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote