View Single Post
02-15-2013, 10:58 AM
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,572
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Here's a study by the IIHF, it's mostly about european players coming over to NA and how it hurts their development. However many of the topics apply to NA players being rushed to the NHL. Essentially it's important for them to be in a place where they can develop their skills, if they are struggling for ice-time, or barely treading water because too much is being asked of them then they aren't developing like they could.

If you want to believe rushing players who aren't ready doesn't hurt them than go ahead it doesn't make you right.
Who said we should rush prospects? I said you do it on a case by case basis... that's just common sense.

Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Yes or no do you think the value of a top-5 pick is more or less than 5 1st round picks spread evenly from 11-30 in a normal draft year.
Given our situation, I'd rather have a top five pick than 5 11-30 picks. Add one more potential superstar to our team and I think we're in great shape. Like I said we might have enough already but I think we need a little more top end talent up front.

I'll post the study for you later today or this weekend. It's very, very cool.
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
What results? We know how it worked out Gainey's way, we have no idea what would've happened if he followed your idea.
We know it couldn't have been any worse. Like I said we had nothing to lose. Those guys left for nothing dude... And we know that we gave up McD for Gomez.

Why do you need to keep asking me for arguments as to why water is wet? It's self evident.
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
We saw tons of young players come in do well initially, get a big head, and stop developing. It's still early to tell but so far Price, Pacioretty and Subban seem much more level headed then guys like Ribeiro, Latendresse, Higgins, Komisarek were at the same age/experience. Maybe it's just those particular players but everyone who has any responsibility in developing players for the NHL says the environment has a big impact. Every other professional field also thinks it's helps in their field as well.

We traded arguably our best goal scorer, a depth scorer, and a defenceman who the year before was in the top-4. In return we got one roster player of lesser quality and several picks/prospects. How is that unintentionally tanking? Gauthier sold all the UFAs he could and a player with a big contract. Even if I were to believe you in thinking he coulda got more how does that change whether it was intentional or not?

Why does Price get dismissed as a fluke but Kopitar dropping to 11th is proof that LA had the best idea of all time. They both required their teams to get lucky and make the most out of that luck.
We saw tons of guys who were picked 15th overall not turn into stars. Not surprising at all.

Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
I'm not losing sleep over that

No one had T.O. at the very bottom of the league but believe what you want.
Dude... come on. Everyone knew that TO was a weak club. Toskala as your starter? That alone should've told you what was up there. The Leafs were an 83 and 81 point team the respective seasons before (finishing last in one of the worst Divisions in the league) and were DEAD LAST in goals given up. If you didn't know this...

Trying to argue that the Bruins couldn't have known that TO was going to be bad is silly.
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
That's because I didn't make up my own definition for word to include 'must be done via a draft'

Kaberle was traded for before Gauthier decided to sell so I'm not sure why you are bringing him up. The Cammalleri trade was a sell, but you're fixated on Bourque so I don't want to get into that again with you.
I'm bringing up Kaberle because it was a short term move. You don't add him if you're building towards a cup. The Cammy trade was a kneejerk reactive stupid move where we got less for an asset than we should've. We benched Kostitsyn rather than showcased him before trading him off...

It was a disaster.
Originally Posted by Sorinth View Post
Because it's very risky to do it when you're a team in MTL's position. You want to pretend that risk doesn't exist, I don't.

Would it make you feel better if I told you Calgary should rebuild by selling off vets and sitting in the bottom for a number of years? Because it makes sense for them but not us.
Because we're contenders and they aren't right?

And I really don't understand how you can see it for Calgary but can't see how it made sense for us with an aging group led by Koivu four years ago.

Lafleurs Guy is offline